Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

NEW WRIT.

For the Borough of Rotherham, in the room of George Herbert, esquire (Chiltern Hundreds).—[Captain Margesson.]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

RUSSIA.

Mr. LEWIS: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress has been made in the negotiation of a new trade agreement with Russia?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir John Simon): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply returned yesterday to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, East (Mr. Mander).

DENMARK.

Mr. BERNAYS: 17.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is in a position to state the results of the recent tariff negotiations with Denmark?

Lieut.-Colonel J. COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): The negotiations are still in progress and I am not yet in a position to make a statement.

Mr. BERNAYS: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman state whether these negotiations are proceeding on the lines of a mutual lowering of tariffs?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I think the hon. Gentleman might with confidence leave that matter to the Government.

Sir MURDOCH McKENZIE WOOD: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman tell us whether the Import Duties Advisory Committee are consulted with regard to these negotiations?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: The Import Duties Advisory Committee are aware of what His Majesty's Government are doing.

Sir PERCY HARRIS: Are the Dominions consulted about what the Government are doing?

Mr. MARTIN: Do not the trade returns with regard to Denmark show an increase in our favour as a result of tariff action?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: It is the case that our exports to Denmark have increased.

Mr. THORNE: Is not the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that these tariffs are paralysing the trade of every country in the world?

Lieut. - Colonel COLVILLE: His Majesty's Government are endeavouring to deal with these barriers.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Are we not going to get a big order from Denmark which will help the steel industry of this country?

Oral Answers to Questions — GRENADA.

Mr. JOHN: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether there is any system of old age pensions or of unemployment relief in Grenada; and, if not, whether he will urge their introduction?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): There is no system of old age pensions or unemployment relief in Grenada, and having regard to the conditions obtaining in the colony, I should not feel justified in present circumstances in urging the Colonial Government to introduce such measures. I am informed by the Governor that during the last two years a sum of approximately £30,000 has been paid in wages in connection with public works, and that there has been no need to initiate any special relief work.

Mr. JOHN: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any information as to the amount of the water rates and of taxes on land and house property in Grenada and in
Barbados, respectively; and whether houses under any particular rent are exempted in either colony?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have had a statement prepared giving the information, so far as it is available in my Department. The statement is very long, and I am therefore sending it to the hon. Member personally.

Mr. JOHN: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will give the House information as to the system of poor relief in Grenada, its adequacy for the needs of the poor, and its administration through the local police; and whether the free hospital accommodation is sufficient for the demand?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: As the reply enters into some detail, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

Poor Belief and Hospital Accommodation in Grenada.

A sum of £800 is provided in the Colony's Estimates of Expenditure in respect of outdoor poor relief. This relief is administered through the police force for purposes of economy. The Governor reports that this system has worked well in the past and, in the absence of a parish system such as that obtaining in neighbouring West Indian colonies, is the only alternative to the setting up of an ad hoc organisation for this purpose. The cost of administering this relief, apart from the salary of the police lance-corporal in charge of inquiries at headquarters, amounts to only 8s. 4d. a month.

Indoor relief is afforded by an institution containing accommodation for 32 men and 26 women, and by the Hamilton Alms House, with accommodation for six women, towards which the Government provides an anual grant of £30.

The Colony Hospital contains 129 beds in all, of which 102 are for non-paying patients. It became necessary in 1932 for reasons of economy to limit departmentally the number of free patients to 60, save in so far as it may be necessary to exceed this total in the event of emergency or epidemic or for other reasons.

The Governor reports that he is satisfied that the existing system meets local necessities to a very large extent. He also reports that, in view of the considerable public interest recently aroused in respect of the administration of both indoor and outdoor relief, he appointed towards the end of December last a commission to inquire into the matter with the following terms of reference:
To inquire into the method by which Indoor and Outdoor Belief is administered by Government and to make such recommendations in connection with this administration as the Commissioners shall think fit, having due regard to the financial position of the Colony.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

ROAD TRAFFIC ACT (PEOSECUTIONS).

Mr. TURTON: 9 and 10.
asked the Minister of Transport (1) how many prosecutions have been instituted under Section 19 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930; and how many persons have been convicted;
(2) whether he is satisfied that Section 19 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, is being observed by employers and drivers of commercial road vehicles; and what steps he has taken to secure the observance of this Section by the employers involved?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Pybus): I cannot say how far the provisions of the Section are being complied with, and I have at present no power to take special steps to enforce them. My hon. Friend may have noticed from reports in the Press that convictions for serious offences under the Section have in some cases been followed by heavy fines; but no information is available as to the total number of convictions. The question of the more effective enforcement of this and other legal requirements will need to be considered in connection with the Government's proposed Bill for the better regulation and control of goods transport by road.

Mr. TURTON: Can my hon. Friend give any information as to the convictions from the statistics published each year?

Mr. PYBUS: I will look into that matter.

MOTOR LICENCES.

Mr. LYONS: 12.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he will consider the advisability of issuing at an excess rate a transferable motor-duty licence to enable any one vehicle of the same owner and of any horse-power, not exceeding the rate upon which duty has been paid, to be used at any one time?

Mr. PYBUS: I am afraid I cannot see my way to adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion. Such a concession could not be equitably confined to any particular class of vehicle and would involve serious administrative difficulties in addition to a substantial loss of revenue.

Mr. LYONS: Has my hon. Friend any record of the large number of motor vehicles which are put out of commission through the owners being unable to use more than one at a time on account of the heavy taxation?

Mr. PYBUS: I have no statistics about that matter.

RAIL AND ROAD CONFERENCE (RECOMMENDATIONS).

Mr. MANDER: 13.
asked the Minister of Transport if any decision has now been reached as to the action to be taken as a result of the Salter Report?

Captain PETER MACDONALD: 14.
asked the Minister of Transport if he can now state what are the intentions of the Government with regard to the report of the Salter Committee on Road and Rail Transport?

Mr. PYBUS: I would refer my hon. Friends to the answer which I gave yesterday in reply to the private notice question put by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Boyce) of which I am sending them copies.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: Is the hon. Gentleman in a position to tell us whether the Bill which he told us yesterday is to be introduced will take precedence of the London Passenger Transport Bill?

Mr. PYBUS: That has nothing to do with the question on the Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTRICITY SUPPLY (ERROL).

Lord SCONE: 11.
asked the Minister of Transport if he is now in a position to
make a statement regarding the introduction of electricity into Errol?

Mr. PYBUS: In accordance with the previous suggestion made by my Noble Friend I have endeavoured to bring about a meeting between the parties, but unfortunately without success. In these circumstances, I am afraid I can do nothing further. While I have power under the Electricity (Supply) Acts to appoint an arbiter on a proper application being made, the matter could only be settled beforehand with the concurrence of both parties concerned.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

BACON INDUSTRY (REORGANISATION).

Mr. LEWIS: 16.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he has any further statement to make with regard to the recommendations of the Reorganisation Commission for Pigs and Pig Products?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Major Elliot): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave yesterday to a question on this subject by my hon. and gallant friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Captain P. Macdonald).

Mr. LEWIS: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend tell the House whether any legislation on this subject will be introduced before the Adjournment for the Easter Recess?

Major ELLIOT: I am afraid that it is impossible to give the actual date, but I hope that it will be introduced at an early date.

WHEAT COMMISSION (ASSIGNMENTS).

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 15.
asked the Minister of Agriculture how many assignments have been received by the Wheat Commission in favour of private landowners; and how many are in favour of joint stock banks?

Major ELLIOT: I am informed by the Wheat Commission that in all 228 assignments have been notified to the Commission. As previously explained it is not easy to distinguish private landowners from other persons, but of the 228 assignments 33 are, I understand, in favour of private persons, 47 in favour of the Commissioners of Crown Lands, and 56 in favour of Joint Stock Banks; the remaining 92 are in favour of merchants.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Does the right hem. Gentleman approve of the Crown Commissioners receiving these assignments?

Major ELLIOT: Certainly. Crown Commissioners have to receive the due receipts for their property the same as anyone else.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE.

UNITED STATES (BRITISH DEBT).

Mr. MANDER: 19.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider the advisability of proposing to the American Government that a final lump sum not exceeding £100,000,000, inclusive of the sum paid on 15th December last, should be paid in settlement of the War Debt to that country?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-Belisha): My right hon. Friend is aware of various suggestions of the nature of that referred to in the question, but he does not consider that it would be desirable for him to express any opinion on them pending the forthcoming negotiations.

ECONOMIES.

Mr. TINKER (for Mr. BANFIELD): 3.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty when it is proposed to restore the cuts made in the pay of naval ratings?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Sir Bolton Eyres Monsell): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Prime Minister yesterday.

Commander MARSDEN: May we now assume that there is no question of any further cuts?

Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: Yes, Sir. No increase in the cuts beyond the 10 per cent. limit has been considered by the Government.

Lieut. - Colonel WATTS-MORGAN (for Mr. T. GRIFFITHS): 8.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air when it is proposed to restore the cuts made in the pay of the Royal Air Force?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. John).

Oral Answers to Questions — IRISH FREE STATE.

Mr. LEWIS: 20.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to what extent the default of the Irish Free State on its obligations to the United Kingdom has as yet been made good by the revenue secured from the Import Duties imposed for this purpose?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The Irish Free State had already withheld sums amounting to £1,750,000 by the 15th July, 1932, when the Special Duties came into force. The sums withheld between that date and 31st January, 1933, amounted to £2,550,000 and the revenue from the Special Duties and from the duties under the Import Duties Act, 1932, on goods imported from the Irish Free State amounted in all to £1,870,000.

Mr. LEWIS: Can my hon. Friend say whether it is proposed to increase the rate of the existing duties or to impose duties on additional articles with a view to making good that deficiency?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Whatever is appropriate has been or will be done.

Mr. MAXT0N: Is the Minister able to tell us what effect the recent increase on Irish goods has had on the collection of the sums due?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I have given the figure for which I was asked, and I shall be only too happy to supply any further figures if my hon. Friend will put down a question.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Will the hon. Gentleman give us the reason why the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs yesterday said that the Government had collected more than the amount of the Annuities outstanding—[HON. MEMBERS: "No !"]. He led the House—[HON.
MEMBERS: "No !"] —

Mr. MAXTON: He led this part of the House.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Seeing that the sum is considerably less than that which is outstanding by the Annuities, will the Government not reconsider the whole question of dropping this stupid quarrel with Ireland and starting to settle in a much more business-like way, and take it from the Dominions Secretary's hands?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I cannot accept the hon. Member's premises and therefore I cannot accept his conclusions.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT (TRANSITIONAL PAYMENTS).

21. Mr. LAWSON: asked the Minister of Labour the number of Commissioners appointed to carry out the work of public assistance committees, and the cost to date?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson): Four Commissioners have been appointed—three for the County of Durham and one for the County Borough of Rotherham—superseding respectively the Public Assistance Authorities for those areas as regards the administration of transitional payments. The estimated cost of administration under the Commissioners for the two areas up to 31st January, including temporary staff taken over by them, was about £11,000, apart from non-recurrent charges amounting to a further £2,250.

Mr. LAWSON: Who has any control over these Commissioners? Has the hon. Member's Department or the Minister any control over them? Can we make any complaints to him and ask him to deal with them?

Mr. HUDSON: The Commissioners stand in relation to my right hon. Friend's Department as the public assistance committees. We have the same control or lack of control over them that we have over the public assistance committees.

Mr. LAWSON: Am I to understand from that statement that a report will be issued of the work of these Commissioners, so that the House will have an opportunity of reviewing their administration?

Mr. HUDSON: I should like notice of that question. Speaking off-hand, the answer is in the negative.

Mr. LAWSON: On a point of Order. As the Minister has refused up to the present time to give any guarantees in regard to this matter, may I ask for your Ruling, Mr. Speaker! The House has voted a certain sum of money for the administration of transitional pay-
ments. When that was done it was under the impression that the public assistance committees were going to administer. The public assistance committees can be criticised by the House and their administration reviewed on the appropriate Vote, or by arrangement. May I ask whether it is within the Rules of this House for the proper administration of expenditure that certain gentlemen can be appointed to administer moneys and that the House will have no opportunity of reviewing the results of their administration and its cost?

Mr. McKEAG: May I ask if the numbers of the ordinary staff have been increased since the appointment of the Commissioners?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) has asked a question, the first part of which appears to me to be more in the nature of an interpretation of the law, and not one for me to decide. I have certainly often heard replies given from the Government Bench that the actual control they have over these Commissioners is similar to that which they have over the public assistance committees. More than that I cannot say. It is really a question of interpretation of the law. As to the latter point, that is a question that might arise upon the Vote, but it would not be for me to decide on it at the present moment.

Mr. LAWSON: When the Commissioners were appointed in certain parts of the country under the Ministry of Health it was understood that the House would have a report, so that an opportunity might be given of reviewing their work. Is there any guarantee that that can be done on the appropriate occasion in the case of these Commissioners?

Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot deal with that now. It would not be relevant for me to do so. I can only say that this question can be raised. The hon. Member may raise this point when it comes before the House, and it will then be for the Chair to decide whether it is in order or not. It is not for me to anticipate at this stage what will happen on that Vote.

Mr. THORNE: Is it not a fact that when Sir Alfred Woodgate was appointed
to take the place of the West Ham Board of Guardians an annual report was presented from him and that was liable to be debated in this House?

Mr. HUDSON: If my recollection serves me aright, Sir Alfred Woodgate was not appointed under the Order in Council of October, 1921.

Mr. BATEY: Of the amount of £11,000 mentioned in the reply, will the hon. Member say what was the cost in Rotherham?

Mr. HUDSON: If the hon. Member will put down a question, I shall be very glad to give him an answer.

Mr. McKEAG: Will the hon. Member answer my question, as to whether the numbers of the ordinary staff have been increased since the appointment of the Commissioners?

Mr. HUDSON: I am afraid I shall require notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS (PROCEDURE).

Mr. MANDER: 22.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government propose at an early date to ask the House to carry into effect the recommendations in the report from the Select Committee on Procedure?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): The recommendations contained in the report of this committee are under consideration, but it is not yet possible to make any statement in regard thereto.

Mr. MANDER: Can the Prime Minister say if a decision is likely to be arrived at before Easter?

The PRIME MINISTER: I should say not. If the hon. Member knows, as I am sure be does, the tremendous breadth and scope of these recommendations, he will see that they raise a thousand and one of the most difficult problems in the Constitutional position of this House.

Viscountess ASTOR: Seeing that so many hon. Members have nothing to do on committees of this House, cannot the Prime Minister give them something to do?

Oral Answers to Questions — AIR SERVICES (AUSTRALIA).

Mr. HALL-CAINE (for Captain P. MACDONALD): 7.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if he can now give any indication as to when the British air mail route to Australia via India and Malaya is to be inaugurated?

Sir P. SASSOON: At this stage I can only say that this route will be inaugurated at the earliest possible date and that, in the absence of unforeseen delays, I should hope that the regular service will be in operation by the late summer or early autumn.

Captain ELLISTON: Can the hon. Member give any report of the progress of the officers who are making an experimental flight to Capetown?

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEPHONE KIOSKS (THEFTS).

Mr. THORNE (for Mr. McENTEE): 18.
asked the Postmaster-General the amount of money stolen from telephone kiosks during the last 12 months; the number of boxes tampered with; and the number of convictions during this period or to the latest available date?

Mr. WOMERSLEY (Lord of the Treasury): During 1932 about £4,000 was stolen from some 2,000 telephone kiosks. 37 persons were convicted. I am glad to say that, following the preventive measures taken, recent losses have been reduced to very small dimensions.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA GOLDFIELD.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government of Kenya, with the consent of the Colonial Secretary, have incurred obligations towards any person, group of persons, or limited company which may restrict the freedom of action of the Government in planning the development of the gold-fields in Kenya; and, if so, to give full particulars?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Five-sixths of the goldfield remains closed, even to prospecting. In the open area a, number of claims have been registered and a few exclusive prospecting licences have been issued. These are subject to the rights and obligations of the Mining
Ordinances. No mining lease has yet been granted in any part of the field.

Mr. JONES: Am I to take it from that answer that there is no departure by the Government from previous declarations made by Conservative and Labour Governments concerning the inalienable rights of the natives in that area?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I do not quite know what the hon. Member means; perhaps he will explore the matter a little further in the Debate. The gold is not vested in the natives but in the Government.

Mr. JONES: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether His Majesty's Government proposes to take into consideration the working of the gold in Kenya as a State enterprise, or alternatively, as a public-private company in which the Government would hold a majority of shares, before entering into any undertakings for the grant of mining leases to private persons or limited companies?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: This suggestion has already been considered. Apart from other considerations I think it will be generally agreed that it would be imprudent that the Government of Kenya should itself engage in so speculative an enterprise as gold mining, in a field moreover which is at present largely unexplored.

Oral Answers to Questions — NEW MEMBER SWORN.

James Henderson Stewart, Esquire, for the County of Fife (Eastern Division).

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS.

POVERTY.

Mr. MAXTON: I beg to give notice, that, on this day four weeks, I shall call attention to the widespread poverty of the people, and move a Resolution.

WHOLESALE PRICES.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: I beg to give notice, that, on this day four weeks, I shall call attention to the necessity for a positive policy to raise the level of wholesale prices, and move a Resolution.

SLUM CLEARANCE.

Captain HAROLD BALFOUR: I beg to give notice, that, on this day four weeks, I shall call attention to slum clearance, and move a Resolution.

INDUSTRIAL RECONSTRUCTION.

Mr. ROBINSON: I beg to give notice, that, on this day four weeks, I shall call attention to industrial reconstruction, and move a Resolution.

INDIAN PAY (TEMPORARY ABATEMENTS) BILL,

"to extend the period in respect of which abatements from pay may be made under the Indian Pay (Temporary Abatements) Act, 1931, subject to a reduction in the percentage to which such abatements are limited," presented by Sir Samuel Hoare; supported by Mr. Butler; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 54.]

TRADE AND NAVIGATION.

Copy ordered,
of Accounts relating to Trade and Navigation of the United Kingdom for each month during the year 1933."—[Mr. Runciman.]

PUBLIC DEPARTMENTS (GROSS AND NET COST, 1931).

Copy ordered,
of Statement showing the Gross and Net total Cost of the Civil Services and Revenue Departments and the Navy, Army, and Air Services for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1932."— [Mr. Hore-Belisha.]

CIVIL CONTINGENCIES FUND, 1931.

Copy ordered,
of Accounts of the Civil Contingencies Fund, 1931, showing (1) the Receipts and Payments in connection with the Fund in the year ended the 31st day of March, 1932; (2) the distribution of the Capital of the Fund at the commencement and close of the year; together with Copy of the Correspondence with the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon."—[Mr. Hore-Belisha.]

COLONIAL ADMINISTRATION.

3.17 p.m.

Mr. DONNER: I beg to move,
That the Colonial Administration, while acting as trustees of the native races, must at the same time have regard to the rights and maintain the responsibilities of all races, and that in this connection this House considers that the action taken by the Government of Kenya in regard to the development of the goldfields in the Kavirondo area and for safeguarding the interests of the native population is both equitable and expedient, and that this House approves such action.
I must claim the indulgence of the House, not only in view of the short time at my disposal in which to prepare a speech on so vital a subject, but also on account of influenza, which has robbed me of the greater part of my voice. It has been suggested in certain quarters that the Government have broken faith with the natives in Kenya. I submit that if the Government were to listen to such criticism at the present time they would depart from the policy of impartial justice as between the natives and the settlers in Kenya, which has been the hall-mark of our policy in the past, and would indeed break faith and trust with our settlers and with the indigenous population as well. In considering this question, it is important that we should never forget the transformation which has overtaken Kenya since the first Englishman set foot in the country. We have brought justice to Kenya by the introduction of law courts. We have constructed harbours, and roads and railways, and other means of communication. We have promoted health and successfully waged war against disease. We have achieved all these results by successfully marshalling western science and utilising the products of a superior western civilisation. The colony has, in fact, become a new country under our guidance and administration; differing entirely from the territory it was prior to our advent. Kenya is as much our creation as a book is the product of its author.
Kenya presents, in consequence, duties and responsibilities which we must fulfil, and which we cannot shirk. But with them it presents rights also. The case against the Government is that, in exercising those rights, conflict has arisen between the interests of the settlers and those of the natives, due to the discovery
of gold in the colony, and that the interests of the natives have been sacrificed for those of the settlers. These attacks on our settlers are nothing new. They are merely part of the long and miserable campaign of villification and abuse with which we are all familiar. In this connection, I will offer a few reflections later.
The creation of native reservations in Kenya has in no way infringed the Crown's ownership of the mineral rights, in or under the soil as the Ordinance which was passed in 1930, incidentally, by the late Socialist Administration, provided that with the advice and consent of the Central Board the Governor could exclude land from a native reserve for certain purposes, and one of those purposes was the development of mineral rights. Therefore the whole substance of the case against the Government falls to the ground automatically. The first thing any visitor to Kenya observes is that the method of native cultivation differs radically from our own. No native clan develops more than a portion of his land, and as each section of land becomes used up and exhausted the native moves to another portion.
It is common knowledge that the surface area required for reef mining is exceptionally small and enables many natives to continue working on the land which they now occupy, in some cases alongside the very plot which is being mined. From my short experience and stay in Kenya I should have thought that any native, whatever his tribe, would have preferred this fact and this possibility of remaining on one portion of the land which he now occupies, rather than being moved off perhaps 10 or 20 or 40 miles away, into an area where he is secluded and removed from his own clan and his own people, and where he himself is not known. In that connection I was glad to receive the assurance of the Secretary of State for the Colonies yesterday that up to date not so much as a single native has been evacuated.
With regard to compensation I believe that this is to be of such a nature that were it offered to a white man in similar circumstances there would be no grounds for complaint. Therefore it cannot be held that there has been a breach of faith with the natives of Kenya. It is clear that there has been no breach of faith with the community as a whole,
or even with those natives who are immediately affected. As the Carter Land Commission has not yet reported and may not do so until the Spring, and as the Commission is still in the colony, and moreover since its presence there coincides with the discovery of gold, I submit that the criticism of the Government at the present time is not only premature but unfortunate and unjust.
I should like to say a few words about our settlers in Kenya. It is clear to any unprejudiced person who has taken the trouble to visit this wonderful colony that our settlers are not only the only progressive element capable of setting an, example, but that they are carrying on a magnificient piece of Imperial work, quietly and efficiently, developing the country to the greatest possible extent. They are doing that not only without injustice to the natives, but with obvious benefit to the African, directly and indirectly. It is all very well for hon. Members opposite and people outside this House to say that our settlers do not care for the interest and welfare of the natives. That is not true. I have seen with my own eyes the happy relationship between our own people and the native tribes. The report of the Joint Select Committee of both Houses of Parliament states specifically on page 24:
In the case of East Africa there can be no doubt that the introduction of European rule as distinct from European settlement has been of great benefit to the native people.
As for settlement, the verdict of the Joint Committee of both Houses reads as follows:
It would be difficult to find any other instance of a white population settling in a native country with so little disturbance of the original population.
To some people any stick is good enough with which to beat our settlers in Kenya. I am convinced that the whole problem of gold mining in Kenya is merely being used in order to continue this long-drawn-out campaign of vilification and abuse against our settlers, as if for all the world our settlers in Kenya have not enough troubles already. They have locusts; and after all we have Socialists. It is insinuated that our settlers care nothing for the natives or their welfare. Critics have gone so far as to say that the active campaign which has been pursued by the Government in Kenya for the
benefit and enlightenment and assistance of the natives has been carried out in the face of settler opposition. That is, of course, contrary to the facts. For years the settlers themselves have advocated some of the work which is now being carried out. The annual report of the Native Affairs Department on page 3 bears me out in this respect and refers particularly to
The relations of mutual esteem and affection established in Kenya between the European master and his African servant, the manifestation of these relations, has been one of the few bright spots in the generally gloomy aspect of the year 1931.
Even if hon. Members opposite do not wish to take the facts from me, they can take them from those reports. What is so remarkable is that objection should be brought forward now when every one connected with politics and with business is thinking and talking about the inadequacy and the maldistribution of the world's gold supplies. Surely the discovery of gold in Kenya is of the greatest importance. It is absolutely essential that that gold should be prospected and worked. I remember listening last autumn to a speech by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, in which he said that if all the world's gold were collected and thrown into the middle of the Atlantic, the world would go on just as happily. I did not interrupt the right hon. Gentleman because I never interrupt hon. Members opposite, but I wondered at the time exactly what would be the reaction, on his audience if he made that speech in the city of Johannesburg.
Is it seriously suggested by anyone that Kenya is to be denied the opportunity of immense development which is offered by this discovery? The possibility of future wealth and development may not necessarily, probably will not, rival the wealth and prosperity of the Witwatersrand, but the discovery of gold will undoubtedly speed up the development and the progress of the colony to a very great extent. Some of us on this side of the House, even though we may be new Members, resent the attitude of hon. Members opposite who assume that the Secretary of State and those of us who sit on these benches care nothing for the welfare of the natives. I should like to assure them that the interests and welfare of the natives are just as close to our hearts as they are to hon. Members opposite.
In conclusion, I should like to say that the future prosperity and development of Kenya depend entirely upon natives and settlers living harmoniously side by side. I would emphasise with all the earnestness at my command that any attempt in this country or in this House to instil doubts into the mind of the native as to the integrity, impartiality and justice of our Colonial administration cuts at the root of faith and confidence in the Imperial Government and is a singularly poor service to the Empire. Either that attitude is misguided activity and is based on misunderstanding of the facts and should therefore cease forthwith, or else it is a deliberate attempt to destroy the present harmonious relationships between settlers and natives in Kenya and is an attempt to "queer the pitch" in regard to the future development of the Colony. The task of those who have to administer that Colony is sufficiently difficult and the problems involved are sufficiently intricate and numerous without the introduction of misplaced sentimentality and subversive interference from home. As the Government of Kenya have pursued a native policy which has been noted for its impartiality and its justice to settler and native alike, I hope that the Members of this House will join in giving the Government that support which it so richly deserves.

3.32 p.m.

Sir JOHN SANDEMAN ALLEN: I beg to second the Motion.
I have much pleasure in doing so and in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for West Islington (Mr. Donner) on the manner in which he has moved it. I am sure that all Members listened with great interest to his speech and appreciated the very able and masterly way in which he handled his subject. As. regards what he said about the settlers in Kenya, I do not propose to do more than to say that I entirely agree, and I am sure that the House as a whole will entirely agree, with his general statement as to the spirit of loyalty and earnestness which animates the settlers in Kenya. They may have certain energetic qualities which perhaps are not admired by some people, but they are good honest
Britishers and their one aim is to run that colony for the good of the Empire to which they are proud to belong and at the same time to take care of the natives. In regard to the natives I can assure the House that they have a very keen sense of their responsibilities. I was a member of the Joint Committee which studied the question of closer union in East Africa. We went into these matters very fully and on the whole we were satisfied as to the way in which the natives were treated. I, therefore, do not propose to take up time in discussing that aspect of the question any further.
I feel that I ought to address myself to one or two special points in connection with this Motion. Before doing so, I should like to say how pleased I am—and I am sure many hon. Members share my pleasure—that the hon. Member in his Motion has called attention to the responsibility of the Colonial administration, not merely as regards trusteeship for the native races, not merely to its responsibility for the interests of the natives, but to its wider responsibility. The Colonial administration, as this Motion states, and as is incontrovertible by any honest person who studies the question, has the responsibility of taking care of the interests of all races in that country. They have the responsibility too of seeing that all races in that country do their duty. There, I feel that we can join in expressing appreciation of the Colonial administration which is beyond reproach on that point and has kept clearly before it its responsibility for protecting the weak and the undeveloped and, at the same time, maintaining the prestige of the nation as a whole and acting justly and doing right by all interests concerned. Therefore I think one is justified in expressing resentment at the wild and careless charges which have been made with supreme indifference to the true situation.
One regrets that any highly esteemed leader in Colonial matters should have been led into the arena of controversy in connection with this matter without informing himself of the facts of the case. We regret that a dignatory of the Church should do so. The Church has plenty to look after itself and has a knowledge of the difficulties with which it is faced. The Colonial Office has also plenty to
look after and has a knowledge of its own difficulties and if people would stick to their own affairs and to the things which they know about and with which they have to deal this country would be much happier and Government and administration would proceed more smoothly. One cannot help feeling that if Church dignatories in East Africa confined themselves to their missionary work and did not try to do anything outside their proper sphere it would be better for all concerned.
What is the trouble to-day in Kenya? The trouble is the question of the goldfields and no doubt certain technical points will be raised in that connection during the Debate. The first consideration is that gold has been discovered in Kenya. There can be no question in anybody's mind that it will be a great thing for Kenya if we are able to develop the goldfields there in the interests of that country and of all its inhabitants, black and white. It should be borne in mind that in Kenya minerals are the property of the British Crown and not of the occupier of the land. The development of the goldfields will lead to the development of the country as a whole, and, at a time when we are going through a serious economic crisis, it is immensely important that this gold should have been discovered.
The next point which we have to consider is the character of the goldfields which have been discovered. Here there is a serious danger of ill-informed people assuming that these goldfields will be something like the Rand where an enormous amount of machinery is required for working the mineral, where an enormous amount of the surface has to be taken up and labour has to be imported from great distances in order to do so. In Kenya, apart from some alluvial deposits, the main amount of gold is found in underground veins and the outcrop of quartz is infrequent. Therefore, what is required is boring in various places. Most of the ore must be worked underground and the surface actually required will only be small. Consequently, instead of a disturbance of a huge area, only the most trifling disturbance will be involved. That is an important point which must be kept in mind. The disturbance of the natives is very small. Indeed not a single native has been evicted so far. I think that statement will be
verified by the Secretary of State. Any native who has been moved has been moved with his own consent and with a certain amount of compensation.
Let me, at this point remind the House of what has been said by the Mover of the Motion as one who has been in Kenya. There are many Members of this House who have studied the question and who have personal experience and they know that the native who cultivates the land very often destroys it bit by bit and uses it up and that the natives are accustomed to moving about and changing their land. I know there are certain people who regard these natives in the same light as cottagers in this country, who are settled down in stone houses, with fences enclosing all their land. The situation is totally different from that and it is that ignorance of the true position which has misled many people. The House will therefore excuse me for having taken a few minutes in explaining that aspect of the situation.
The next point which we have to consider is the method of operating these goldfields. The first step is to obtain a licence to prospect. That licence is obtained under the Mining Ordinance already referred to and that has nothing to do with the other Ordinance with which we shall deal later on. That distinction ought to be kept clearly in mind because there has been a good deal of muddling of the two things in connection with the attacks upon the Government on this question. The prospecting licences are granted for a year and are renewable. In the case of land within a native reserve they can only be obtained with the consent in writing of the Native Land Trust Board. This consent has, I understand, been obtained in every case so far.
Turning to the Mining Ordinance, Article 14 lays down the position of the native land trust boards as owner on behalf of the natives and any compensation to be devoted by them to the use of the natives concerned. Article 26 lays down reasonable compensation for disturbance to crops, etc. Prospecting licences having been obtained and a reasonable prospect of success ascertained, the next step is to stake out claims and have the same registered, and all that is done under the Mining Ordinance. These claims run for one year, but they are renewable for periods of one year. If these claims are aban-
doned, any disturbance of land has to be made good, holes filled up, and so on. Article 43 provides that the Government may grant a lease to holders of the claims of prospecting licences for not less than five years and not more than 21 years. These leases are subject to renewal and also subject to surrender on terms. It is, therefore, quite clear that any exclusion of land through a lease is temporary, not permanent, in most cases. This, of course, raises an entirely new point, which was not in the mind of anyone when the previous Ordinances were laid down.
Now let us see how we stand up-to-date. So far no leases have been issued, no land has been alienated, and not a single native has been evicted. Some natives have, by their own consent, been moved to other parts of their land or that of their neighbours, and compensation granted accordingly. There is, therefore, no grievance of any kind at present, and all action so far taken is under the Mining Ordinance. It is just as well to have this clear and so dispose of the wild and foolish talk that has been going on about the poor native, who is really quite happy, because, as a matter of fact, this has given employment to many just at a time when employment is badly needed, owing to the fact that the European farms are suffering on account of the severe economic troubles and arc unable to employ the natives. It is proving a Godsend to the natives, and if the gold is developed further, it will give much more employment to many natives. Moreover, the situation is not like that on the Rand, where labour had to be imported, houses built, and so on. The native here will be living with his wives—a very important point, as those who know the conditions in Africa understand—and also on his land, and at the same time getting employment and earning money.
That being so, where is the grievance up to date? There is none. As I have already stated, so far only a number of prospecting licences have been issued and a number of claims registered. The question, therefore, resolves itself into the point of what will be the effect on native reserves when the leases are issued, in accordance with the Mining Ordinance, to the parties whose claims have been registered. To understand this, we must turn to the Native Land Trust Ordinance
of 1930 and see how it affects the position. This provides, in the first place, for permanent possession for the natives of native reserves; and, in the second place, it establishes native land trust boards, which administer all the lands in the reserves. It also establishes local boards in each administrative district, which must be consulted. Article 15 authorises the Governor to exclude from the native reserves, with the advice of the Central Board, land required for the development of minerals, after approval of the local native councils and local boards. The Article also requires that
Where any land is excluded from the native reserve under this Section the Governor shall by notice in the Gazette add to such native reserve from suitable and, if possible, contiguous, unalienated, and unreserved Crown land, an area equal in extent and, as far as possible, equal in value to the area excluded,
and so on.
This Ordinance has been amended, after consultation with the Central Native Land Trust Board and the First Native Commissioner, and here lies any grievance that anyone might have, particularly in the superficial way in which they look at it, but a real study of the facts will remove from the minds of unprejudiced people any questions that may have worried them so far. Further, what is most important, the Ordinance has been amended after consultation also with the Land Commission appointed to study native reserves and Sir Arthur Kitson, the eminent geologist and expert, all of whom have approved of the amending Ordinance under the special circumstances of the case, because it deals with a completely new problem. The Ordinance only covers land excluded temporarily from a reserve for development of mineral resources under a lease, and stipulates that during the period of currency of such lease it shall not be obligatory on the Governor to add to native reserves on such lands, provided that on the expiry of such lease the land shall revert to the native reserve, and the compensation meanwhile shall be paid to the local native fund concerned that is entitled thereto. It also provides that in connection with these leases the local board, etc., shall be consulted, rather than the local native council, which covers a much bigger area.
I do not want to go further into that point, but I want to emphasise the
importance of these changes not being exaggerated. Here is a new problem, involving the temporary exclusion of land. If you are going to act on a literal interpretation of the old Ordinance, every acre that is excluded under a lease will have to be replaced by some acre, to be found somewhere, as near as you can get it, but it may be 20 miles away. In this way you would very soon have your native reserve in that part looking like a chess board, and you would not know where you were, in and out all the time, the very opposite of what we have all aimed at in connection with native reserves. What is the surface involved 1 It is estimated that up to date there are 1½ square miles affected out of one reserve alone of 2,300 square miles and three reserves of 7,000 square miles. The whole thing is absolutely absurd. The Governor has gone round and explained it to the natives most carefully. He has taken the pains to go round himself and explain the position to them. The natives understand it, and if it was not for agitators here and there, they would be perfectly content. I am sure that the country as a whole looks with profound disgust at the way in which people are trying to sow distrust in the minds of the natives, who are being so loyally guided and cared for by our Government, with the long view, not the short view.
The Land Commission was appointed on the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Closer Union, with Sir Morris Carter, retired judge, as chairman, and the terms of reference to the Commission, which were not challenged in either House, were to study the amount of land adequate for native reserves. They are the proper body to advise on this question and they are the body which has been consulted, so what is the use of complaining about that? The natives are in the very best hands. No one can judge what should be done piecemeal. What is needed is a comprehensive survey of the situation when licences are issued and leases granted and there is a proper and full estimate made of the land permanently required for land permanently excluded. Why all this ridiculous fuss, as if we were robbing the natives of a square mile here and there and were not going to give them at least as much, if not more, in exchange? It is a most unfair and improper reflection on the
honesty and integrity of our administration, and I record the strongest protest against it. I feel privileged to be able to second this Resolution, and I ask this House to decide, with no doubtful voice, on the merits of this case, and to send a message of entire confidence in the Colonial Secretary, who has devoted so much time to the service of that which has been put under his charge and who has already shown how deep is his interest in these matters by watching them so closely. We want to send a message of confidence also to the Governor in Kenya, who is acting so faithfully, and to the colonists there. Let us give a vote of confidence to them all and have done with this miserable, petty, bickering and mischief-making, which have been going on far too long.

3.51 p.m.

Mr. LUNN: I beg to move, in line 3, to leave out from the word "races," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words:
in Kenya, should develop the resources of that country for the benefit of the native races, and in so doing must ensure that any native, dispossessed of territory which was solemnly reserved for native occupation in accordance with the pledged word of His Majesty's Government, has an equivalent area of land provided outside the native reserves, and that the whole of the profits derived from minerals discovered shall enure to the Government in the interests of the native population.
I should like to sympathise with the hon. Member who moved the Motion in the physical difficulties which he was under through influenza. I should also like to agree with him in his statement with regard to the short time that has been allowed to prepare for this Debate. I may say to him that I am a Socialist and I wish that I could be as destructive of this Government as the locust is known to be in East Africa. I say that quite sincerely. This Motion has been inspired by the Government, and they knew yesterday when they were answering questions that it would be put down to-day. The hon. Gentleman who seconded the Motion usually puts forward a very modest speech on these matters. I do not think that I have ever heard him speak so strongly as he has done to-day. I am going to ignore that defence of the exploiter which was largely contained in his speech. That was really all I could see in the speech.
I am satisfied that what is being done in Kenya just now and in this Motion is tantamount to a repudiation of all our declarations in East Africa. I believe that it is a resuscitation of Imperialism as we knew it in 1899, and, while I have almost ceased to be astonished at the actions of the Prime Minister, who could be quoted in this matter with much stronger views in support of the natives than I shall use, I am disappointed to know that after his actions in the past he should be a supporter of a Motion like this. He was responsible for the Native Land Trust Ordinance of 1930. If he had any consistency in him, he would be defending everything that is laid down in that Ordinance. Our Amendment is a modest approval of the declarations that have been made by all the Colonial Secretaries since the War. We do not seek to go away from the position that has been laid down. I am satisfied, however, that in this Motion and in the action of the Government the pledged word of Great Britain is being broken.
I am sorry that the Government are at the back of a Motion like this. Many people in all parties, as I said yesterday at Question Time, are alarmed at what is happening. In the House of Lords today there is a Debate on this very subject. It is not raised by Labour Members, but by men who know Kenya and East Africa better than any of us who have spoken, and who will show their indignation at what is taking place. There is indignation in the Church, and we cannot ignore the Church in its opinion in this matter. It is not usual for the Archbishop to rush into the Press, but the Archbishop of Canterbury has come out on this matter because he knows, or at all events he fears, the possibilities to missionary work, to missionary societies and perhaps to missionary funds from what is being done by the Government to destroy the interests of the natives. More than that, there is the attitude of the general community. As has been said by both hon. Members who preceded me, there is an agitation in the country on this matter, and some parts of the Press have been full of condemnation of the Government in what is taking place.
After spending many years in building up our honour with native populations, we are in a single day to tear up our
pledges, and millions of natives in all parts of the Empire will no longer trust our word. We remember the consequences of tearing up a scrap of paper some years ago, and I believe that this tearing up of a scrap of paper by the Government may be as far-reaching in its consequences to the Empire through the attitude of native populations towards us. Kenya is not a self-governing colony; it is a Crown colony, and the responsibility for what is happening is not upon Kenya but upon the Home Government.
The Mover and Seconder of the Motion did not have regard to the fact that there are 3,000,000 natives in Kenya, but devoted the whole of their time to the defence of the position of the 17,000 European settlers. However turbulent the East African Protectorate was before 1920 it has been no less difficult since that time, and I feel satisfied that what is being done by the Government will have a great effect upon our trusteeship, and that our word will be regarded as an empty one. May I quote the declarations of previous Colonial Secretaries on this matter. They were not members of my party, but members of all parties. In 1923, the Duke of Devonshire, and in 1927 the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery), who was Colonial Secretary for many years, and who has a knowledge of the Empire which is supreme among men of my acquaintance, laid it down that:
In the administration of Kenya His Majesty's Government regard themselves as exercising a trust on behalf of the African population, and they are unable to delegate or share that trust, the object of which may be defined as the protection and advancement of the native races.
They went on further to declare that:
Primarily, Kenya is an African territory, and His Majesty's Government think it necessary definitely to record their considered opinion that the interests of the African natives must be paramount.
That has not been the attitude of the Mover and Seconder of the Motion to-day:
If and when those interests and the interests of the immigrant races should conflict, the former should prevail.
Those were the declarations of two Conservative Colonial Secretaries many years ago, and they have been confirmed by every Commission that has been to East
Africa. They were confirmed by the Ormsby-Gore Commission. They were confirmed by the Hilton Young Commission, and they were confirmed by the Joint Committee on Closer Union in East Africa which sat for many months dealing with this problem. Then in the Native Lands Trust Ordinance of 1930, Lord Passfield left no one in doubt when he laid it down that certain land in Kenya was to be reserved for the use and benefit of the native races for ever, but he did provide, I agree, that if any land was needed for ordinary public purposes, that was to be dealt with, and that other land contiguous to the native reserve was to be provided for the natives of equal value and of equal extent. Further, if land has to be taken for any purpose it is laid down that there shall be a formal inquiry by a competent tribunal, and I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman to say to-day whether or not there has been such an inquiry by a competent tribunal? It is important that we should know who has advised him upon this matter, and whether or not he is carrying out the declaration of those who have gone before and have dealt with this particular subject?
Then I might say that, under the Mining Ordinance, Section 12, no African can be a prospector for gold. A person must be able to read English, and must be able to understand the difficult regulations if he wishes to be a prospector for gold. But when the hon. Member who seconded the Motion sat on the Joint Committee on Closer Union it was not thought that gold would be found in Kenya. The report of the Joint Committee on Closer Union, paragraph 10, says:
The whole area is essentially dependent for all economic progress upon agricultural and pastoral industries. Comparatively few mineral deposits likely to attract enterprise on any considerable scale have been discovered, and the economic advance of all races must to a large extent depend upon the success of agricultural crops and stock raising.
That was the declaration in this report which was published in 1931, and almost immediately after they had concluded their sittings, gold was found in the Kavirondo Reserve. As soon as it was learnt that gold had been found, prospectors were on the job from all parts, and they have only to pay £25 to begin. They are coming from everywhere, so I
am informed, tearing up the land belonging to the African.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): I am sure that the hon. Member would not wish to make any mistake. If he means that the prospectors come from different parts of Kenya, he is accurate, but if he means that there is a great influx of people from outside, he is quite inaccurate, as shown by the figures I gave yesterday.

Mr. LUNN: I noticed the figures given in answer to a question yesterday, but I wondered to what date those figures referred.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The figures in my answer clearly referred to the last four months of last year compared with the last four months of previous years.

Mr. LUNN: That may be the fact, but the right hon. Gentleman knows what will be sure to happen if gold is produced, or likely to be produced, in sufficient quantities, and, with the regulations he has laid down, Kenya will be flooded by the type of people who go on such occasions. That means that tribal life in Kenya is in danger of being destroyed, and we shall find that our honoured pledged word will be like poison to the natives in this area. It is said that this is only temporary. What is meant by "temporary"? Is it 21 years, 25 years or 33 years, and that then it can be renewed? If it is any of these periods it is almost a lifetime. I say that it is a breach of faith on the part of the Government, and I do not accept the apology of the Colonial Secretary published in the Press on 19th January. I think that he has to say something more to us to-day to justify the position which the Colonial Office has taken up. We want to see the evil that has been done remedied. We want to see our prestige restored in the eyes of millions of people of all races and colours, and I should like to ask him to see to the repeal of the Bill that was rushed through the Kenya Parliament in much less than a month. May I quote to him what was said on 15th December by the Chief Native Commissioner in moving that Bill, which received the Royal Assent, I believe, on 12th January?
The Commissioner agreed that the Bill would not be popular with the natives, for
it involved a conception of the use of land foreign to native ideas, and no amount of compensation would induce them to agree to the leasing of land voluntarily. ' I am afraid, he said, ' we shall have to hurt their feelings, wound their susceptibilities and in some cases violate their most cherished and sacred traditions by moving natives from a piece of land on which they had the right to live and setting them up on another piece, the holders of which would have the right to eject them. We have to face these difficulties '.
We on this side of the House, and I think many people in the country—even Conservative university students recently passed a resolution favouring the defence of the native interests in Kenya, as was reported in the "Times" a few days ago —stand for the maintenance of the Native Lands Trust Ordinance of 1930, and all that it implies. If it is the fact that gold is the property of the Crown and is worth working—and I hear it is very rich in some parts; in fact, Sir Albert Kitson, the great geologist, who has just returned from Africa, said in a speech at the East African Dinner Club, on the 17th January:
Only last night I had a letter saying that these two American ladies, one a New Zealander and the other an American, are just about, to leave Kenya for a well-earned holiday. For three weeks they never took less than 30, 40 or 60 ounces of gold a day out of the stream "—
And gold is £6 an ounce !
and later the yield reached 250 ounces, and even 325 ounces a day, before going back to 60 ounces. Now they are through the very rich patch.
They got something like £17,500 in three weeks; and we spend on education in Kenya £130,000 a year. Yet all that is laid down in this Ordinance, or in the Mining Ordinance, with regard to the production of gold is that a 5 per cent, royalty should be paid to the Kenya Government. Can the right hon. Gentleman justify a position like that?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: That was the Mining Ordinance—your Ordinance.

Mr. LUNN: Of course, as I showed the right hon. Gentleman, in the report of the Committee on Closer Union, gold, at all events, was not understood to be likely.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Does the hon. Gentleman mean that the late Labour Government approved a Mining Ordinance dealing with the working of
minerals and the royalty to be obtained in respect of minerals, and did not intend that to apply to gold?

Mr. LUNN: Whether it did or did not, I say that 5 per cent, is not a sufficient royalty for the Government, and I think the right hon. Gentleman will bear me out that there was a new Mining Ordinance in August of last year. I should say that this gold should be worked by the Government, and under Government control. That would be the best guarantee that the destruction of native property would be reduced to a minimum. That is the line I should take. There could be a competent staff who would co-operate and consult native interests, and we should be able, perhaps, to convince them that although we were not keeping our pledged word to the letter, we were doing our best to keep to it. But to foster and to encourage a mad rush as may take place, will be disastrous and a betrayal of our declared word to all the natives in all parts of the Colonial Empire. All the other services—railways, steamers on the lakes— are State owned, and why not these rich deposits if they are to be found in Kenya? I have heard to-day that it may possibly be as rich a goldfield as ever there has been known in the world. If that is so, I would like to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman that we should not pass a Motion such as that on the Order Paper to-day, but that it should be withdrawn. I would like to appeal to him in that way, because I fear the consequences of the interpretation of the Motion. If it is not to be withdrawn and is to be passed, then, as we said a few months ago when the Morris Carter Commission was appointed, that we should refuse to guarantee to be bound by the declaration of that Commission, we must equally declare that we are definitely opposed to the policy of the Government which they are pursuing at the moment with regard to the finding of gold in Kenya.

4.14 p.m.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: The question which is now before the House is by no means a party question. It is a question for the House of Commons. It is a question in which we are all interested in whatever part of the House we may sit, and I think it is very fortunate that we have had this early opportunity after re-
assembling of going into the matter. The thanks of the House are due to the hon. Member who was fortunate in the Ballot and put down this question for discussion, no less than to the Government Whips who arranged, I believe, that this question should be given a very early place, if possible, on the Order Paper. On the other hand, I think it is most unfortunate that the Secretary of State did not take the House of Commons into his confidence somewhat sooner. Our trouble with regard to this matter has been, that information concerning it has arrived piecemeal, and it has been extremely difficult to arrive at what the facts really are. In order to form a correct conclusion we must first know the facts.
The problem is essentially full of difficulties. It is perfectly obvious that when a goldfield is discovered in the midst of a densely populated native reserve all sorts of questions immediately arise. Gold rashes always create difficulties, and a gold rush in the middle of a native reserve in Kenya presents, I suppose, more difficulties than one could imagine with a gold rush, elsewhere in the world. In the first place, we have to remember that the Kavirondo Reserve is densely populated, and in the second place we are not at present aware what the extent of the goldfield may really be. We are only in the early beginnings, but it is perfectly clear that we should take steps at the outset to make future development as easy as possible and try to avoid difficulties that we may see looming ahead. As to the development of the minerals, let the House make no mistake: the minerals belong to the Crown. That has been asserted before, and it cannot be gainsaid. The natives have no right to the minerals, which are the property of the Crown. Such rights as the natives have are surface rights on the land, though, of course, it is obvious that directly one attempts to get under the surface to the minerals below one must, to a greater or less extent, interfere with the occupation rights of the natives on the surface.
I would like to say at the outset that I do not wish to question in the slightest degree the sincerity of the Governor or the Secretary of State or their desire to do everything perfectly fair and right in this very difficult matter. I am sorry, rather, that it should have been suggested from the other side of the House
that people who are interested in this matter, and who are only anxious, as we are all anxious, to do the right thing, are to be regarded as disturbers and petty interferers between the natives and the Government. Very far from it. We desire not only to help the Government to do the right thing, but to see that the right line of policy is followed out, because that must be for the benefit not only of the natives but of the Colony as a whole, and it is the greatest mistake to imagine that although the natives are in such an enormous majority in the Colony they are the only people there. The Colony consists of a number of Europeans, a very considerable number of Asiatics, and these millions of natives, and any action the Government take in a matter like this must have regard to the interests of the Colony as a whole and not of any section of the inhabitants.
I am sorry, also, as I said just now, that the House of Commons was not taken sooner into the confidence of the Secretary of State, and that the action which has been taken has had an air of secrecy. That air of secrecy and rapid action have given rise to a great deal of the uneasiness which has been experienced throughout the country. No matter to what part of the country one may go, north, east, south or west, one finds the serious Press of the country disturbed by the action which has been taken, and I hope that one result of this Debate will be so clearly to bring out the facts of the position that that uneasiness may be finally allayed. Hon. Members will no doubt have seen the correspondence in the "Times." Two points particularly referred to in that correspondence are, first, the allegation, that there has been a breach of faith and that we have gone back on our word and on the Native Land Ordinance of 1930; and, secondly, the great anxiety exhibited as to the methods to be adopted for the development of this goldfield. Its successful development will undoubtedly be of enormous benefit to the Colony.
I am not one of those who suggest that because gold has been found in a native reserve it should not be worked; that would be ridiculous. What I am anxious to see is that it is worked in such a way that the interests of the natives, no less than the interests of any other inhabitants of the Colony, are not damaged.
Therefore, a close and impartial scrutiny of the facts is demanded, and I hope the House will bear with me if I go back into past history in order to bring the matter into its proper perspective, because it is somewhat difficult to understand the full implication of the present position unless we look at what happened in past years. It was not until the Uganda Railway was built and the fine nature of the land was discovered that an invitation was sent to settlers to come to the Colony and questions as to the land first arose. Land was then given out by the Government on very easy terms to incoming settlers. The first trouble that arose with the native tribes over land was with the Masai. A treaty was made with the Masai in Sir Donald Stewart's governorship. He, realising the difficulties surrounding the land question, appointed a Land Committee with Lord Delamere as chairman, and I would like to quote a sentence from its report in 1905:
Everyone is of one opinion in agreeing that when once the Government has given its word to the natives in fixing a reserve that the reserve so fixed should be absolutely inviolable. It therefore becomes of all the more importance that the greatest care and forethought should be taken to prevent any subsequent interference with an area which has once been fixed by the Government as a reserve.
Unfortunately, a few years later the Government decided that it would be necessary to break the treaty made with the Masai and to remove them to another portion of the Colony, or Protectorate, as it then was. There was a great outcry over what was called the Masai move. The matter was taken into the courts, which decided that they were unable to interfere in a matter of treaty-making between the Government and the chiefs. In 1315 the Lands Ordinance was passed, and the question of reserves and the marking out of reserves necessarily came still more to the front. After the War there was an increase in the white settlement, and that, again, brought up the question of the reserves and their demarcation. Hon. Members may perhaps remember that there were unfortunate riots in the Kikuyu country, headed by Harry Thuku. One of the causes of the discontent put forward was that the ownership of their land was being called in question. In 1923, when there were difficulties with the Indian inhabitants, a White Paper was issued, to which the
hon. Member for Rothwell (Mr. Lunn) has referred and I will not again quote the famous declaration of trusteeship made in that White Paper. In 1925 a commission was sent out headed by the present First Commissioner of Works. They made a very interesting report, from which I would like to quote a sentence:
There is probably no subject which agitates the native mind to-day more continuously than the question of their rights in land, both collectively as tribes and individually as owners or occupiers. … Uncertainty in regard to future land policy is certainly the principal cause of disquiet among the natives, more particularly of Kenya and Nyasaland.
In 1927 the home Government issued another White Paper, in which the principle of trusteeship was again stressed. In 1929 the Hilton Young Commission Was sent out to report on closer union. In their report they referred to the sentence I have just read from the Parliamentary Commission's report, and they say:
We agree with the Parliamentary Commission in this respect,
And then continue: —
But the question of title is in itself of dominating importance. When in any territory it becomes necessary to fix the boundaries of what are to be reserved as native areas, then it is absolutely essential that the title of the natives to their beneficial occupation should be indefeasibly secured. Native confidence in the justice of British rule is jeopardised by even a suspicion that the complete inviolability of their beneficial rights is in any circumstances whatever liable to infringement or modification.
The next year the then Labour Government issued another White Paper—I must apologise to the House for making these quotations, but I think it has been rather important to show the chain of circumstances—in which they discuss the expropriation of native land for public purposes and say:
Where an aggregate area of land has been solemnly assured to the native population it must not be lessened. Other land. therefore, of superficial extent equal to that which has been compulsorily expropriated, and thus, in effect, abstracted from the area of the native reserves, must in every case be obtained from the areas not previously allocated to the natives, and where practicable placed freely at the disposal of the persons or the tribe to be extruded from their accustomed territories.
It was on the basis of that declaration that the then Government insisted on the provision being inserted into the Native
Lauds Trust Ordinance providing that where land is taken from a reserve, land of equal area and as far as possible equally valuable should be put in reserve to make up that which has been taken from it. That Ordinance, which was passed so lately as 1930, has been referred to as the native Magna Charta.
In 1931 we come to the sittings of the Joint Select Committee. It sat for many months at the other end of this corridor, in the King's Robing Room, and had before it native witnesses drawn from various territories of Africa, who frankly and freely said to the representatives of Parliament what they thought 'about their grievances, and particularly about their grievances in connection with the title to land. The Joint Select Committee in their report dealing with Kenya said:
In view of the nervousness among the native population as regards the land question, a full and authoritative inquiry should be undertaken immediately into the needs of the native population, present and prospective, with respect to land within or without the reserves, held either on tribal or individual tenure. Pending the conclusion of this inquiry, no further alienation of Crown land to non-natives should take place except in exceptional cases with the sanction of the Secretary of State.
Following on that, the Secretary of State appointed the Morris Carter Commission to go into the matters to which the Joint Committee referred. I should like to take this opportunity of saying that when the terms of reference of the Morris Carter Commission were considered it was thought advisable—and I, being at the Colonial Office at the time, concurred— that the working of the Native Land Trust Ordinance should be referred to the Morris Carter Commission so that they could report on it, especially with respect to the difficulties which might arise in connection with the goldfields. That was one of the matters which was particularly referred to the Morris Carter Commission. I have tried shortly to summarise the history of the last 30 years, showing how closely this House and the home Government is involved and the interest that it has constantly taken in an endeavour to see that the rights of natives and then-land shall, as far as possible, be made absolute and secure.
When we come to the discovery of gold in 1932, events move very much quicker.
It was only in July of last year that the Governor took the opportunity of visiting the goldfields, and he then gave an assurance to the natives that there was no intention to deprive them of their land. The natives asked him to take a native oath, which I believe consisted in dividing a dog, or something of the sort. He naturally refused to take an oath of that kind, and he said that his word should be sufficient. The word of the Governor should be sufficient. I am sorry to have had it reported to me that the natives are saying that they now understand why the Governor refused to take the oath.
On the 17th October, the Chief Native Commissioner issued a circular—that is to say the circular was dated on that day —giving explanations to the natives in the reserves as to what was happening. Very naturally and obviously, prospectors going to the reserves and putting in their prospecting claims upset considerably the natives, who see their land being marked out without knowing what is going to be the result. So this circular was issued. It has been said by Archdeacon Owen in a communication which he has made to the Press of this country that that circular was sent to him and other officials for translation at a very much later date, and he has also made the statement that when the amendment to the Ordinance went through the Legislative Council the natives in the neighbourhood had not had any notice of it.

Sir PHILIP CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I would like to say at once, if the hon. Gentleman will permit me, that I understood from the Governor that the circular had been circulated in the mining districts. Archdeacon Owen's district was not concerned, because it came outside the mining area, and he would, therefore, not get the circular because his area was not concerned. The circular was distributed to Missions in the districts concerned and the missionaries were, I understand, asked to arrange for translation and further circulation. Apparently this was not done. It has now been translated into Swahili and the vernacular and is being circulated.

Sir R. HAMILTON: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the explanation, but I think that there was some delay in the circular being circulated.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The Governor himself and the Chief Native Commissioner attended native meetings to explain exactly what was taking place. I think that that is very much more important.

Sir R. HAMILTON: I agree that that was extremely important. As the right hon. Gentleman suggested later in the House, it was very important that the Chief Native Commissioner should have gone round. I think I remember him saying what a very excellent Circular it was and that he approved of it entirely.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes.

Sir R. HAMILTON: It is not a very big point. I am only regretting that the Circular did not go out sooner and that it was delayed. On the 7th December the hon. Member for Central Bristol (Lord Apsley) asked the Secretary of State if he could make a further statement as to the policy that the Government was adopting with regard to the discovery of gold in the native reserves in the northern Kavirondo in Kenya, and to whom the mineral rights of the district belonged. The Minister replied:
I am not yet in a position to make a detailed statement."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th December, 1932; col. 1597, Vol. 272.]
Then he goes on to speak about the mineral rights belonging to the Crown. That was on the 7th December. The Secretary of State was not in a position to make a detailed statement. On the 18th December I, personally, and I daresay other hon. Members, received cabled information from Kenya that an amending Ordinance was going to be introduced into the Legislative Council on the 21st. Hon. Members will perhaps remember that I put a question down asking for information. Then came the Christmas Recess. I am not quite sure of my date, but I think that it was on the 31st December, or very early in January, that the Governor's assent was given to the amending Ordinance which had passed through all its stages. The great rapidity with which action was taken, without the people of this country being fully aware of what was taking place, has, I am sure, given rise to a very great deal of the uneasiness and suspicion which has been evidenced in
the correspondence which has taken place in the public Press.
I should like to refer for a minute to the Ordinance itself and to the effect of the amendment. The original Ordinance of 1930 provides that land may be taken for certain public purposes, including mineral development, but with this proviso:
no land shall be excluded from a native reserve under this Section unless the Central Board is satisfied that the proposed exclusion has been brought to the notice of the local native council; 
and further:
Where any land is excluded from a native reserve under this Section the Governor shall by notice in the Gazette add to such native reserve from suitable and if possible contiguous unalienated and unreserved Crown land an area equal in extent and as far as possible equal in value to the area excluded.
The amending Ordinance says:
It shall not be obligatory on the Governor during the period of the currency of such lease or of any renewals thereof to add to such native reserve any land as is provided under Sub-section (2) of this Section: 
Provided that at the final expiration of the currency of such lease the land so excluded shall revert to the native reserve concerned; 
and further:
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in Sub-section (1) of this Section where land is excluded from a native reserve under this Sub-section it shall not be necessary for the Central Board to bring the proposed exclusion to the notice of the local native council or of the natives concerned.
There we have in a nutshell the amendments that have been made. One amendment is that it shall no longer be necessary to bring exclusions to the notice of the native local council, and a second is that it shall not be necessary to add an equal area of land to make up for the land excluded.
On the 19th January, the Secretary of State issued an explanation to the Press. The gist of the explanation, contained in the statement then made, was the temporary nature of the exclusion and the small area that was likely to be excluded. I grant that the area may be small, but we do not know yet what developments may take place. I grant also that when a mining lease is worked out and becomes useless and the land reverts to the reserve, that might be called a temporary
exclusion. Let us look a little closer at what that word "temporary" means. Suppose that any hon. Member had a certain area of his acreage taken away from him temporarily, and that he was told that it might revert in 25 or 50 years to his heirs; he would consider that he had been fairly permanently excluded from that land. I do not think that the Secretary of State is quite justified in placing the stress that he does on the temporary nature of the exclusion.
When you come to the case of an African native who is, or may be, excluded from his holding for a matter of 25 years, if the mining leases are not renewed for a considerable period of time, from the African native's point of view there can be very little doubt that he would regard such exclusion as permanent.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The hon. Gentleman is not now quoting his own argument, but he is quoting my defence. Will he take it from me that my defence is not at all similar to that which he is now seeking to make it. I have always laid enormous stress on the point that the native will get land.

Sir R. HAMILTON: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon, but I was quoting from his own statement. Let there be no mistake about that. I will quote the words:
It is clear from the terms of the Ordinance "—
he says—
that the exclusion 
contemplated in the original Ordinance
was a permanent exclusion.
The Ordinance simply says "exclusion." He then goes on to say:
It will thus be seen that the total amount of land likely to be excluded from the reserves is relatively very small. Moreover, the exclusion is only for the duration of the lease.
I do not think I have incorrectly quoted the right hon. Gentleman.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I should prefer to make my own case. I think the hon. Gentleman will do me the justice to admit that I have stated perfectly plainly that the Governor has said that each native will get land, and that I have said very plainly more than once that I should not regard it as satisfactory to take away a native's land and give
him nothing, or merely to give him compensation in cash, but that I think it is essential that the individual's land should not be diminished.

Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: The individual's, not the land reserve; that is the point.

Sir R. HAMILTON: The whole point, as I understand it, is that, within the law which the right hon. Gentleman laid down, the total area of the native reserve was not to be diminished. I quite appreciate that there may be extreme difficulties in finding suitable land in the neighbourhood, and that it might be necessary to expropriate land that had been given to other persons, or to spend money on land that is more or less useless in order to make it useful, by irrigation or by taking some action with regard to it so that it would be of use to a native whose reserve has been diminished. I should like now, again quoting from the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, to refer to the concluding portion, in which he said;
It has already been stated that exclusion for a mining lease is not a permanent exclusion, but it may well be that a further area of land should ultimately be added to the reserve as additional compensation to the natives as a whole for the temporary exclusion of land included in a lease and for disturbance of land so occupied and damaged in working. But this aspect of the problem cannot be dealt with piecemeal.
I should like to ask the Secretary of State if he can give any assurance that what he appears to indicate there will be given effect to. I gather, from that concluding portion of his statement, that he is prepared to add land to the reserve where the area has been diminished for the purpose of development by mining leases. It is very difficult, of course, to find out what the feeling of the natives is with regard to action such as has been taken. It has been stated, and I think it is only natural to expect, that a good deal of uneasiness, to put it no higher, is being felt by the natives, and not only by the natives of one tribe, because there are means of communication between different tribes, and, when a tribe like the Kikuyu see the action that has been taken with regard to the development of this mining field in the Kavirondo country, they will, I think, say very easily, "If action like this can be so lightly taken,
and if the law which was to give us security of title to our land can be so easily altered by the Legislative Council, with the approval of the Secretary of State, for the purposes of gold, why not our land at some other date for some other purpose?" It will give a shake to the confidence of the natives right through the country.
This Motion asks the House to say that what has been done is both equitable and expedient. Before I could commit myself to saying that what has been done is either equitable or expedient, I should like first to hear what the Secretary of State has to say in fuller explanation and in giving us fuller facts surrounding the whole difficulties of the position. But, whatever explanation the Secretary of State may give us, a very great responsibility rests upon this House, and I do not hesitate to say that, unless an assurance can be given that such action will be taken in the future as will not shake the natives' confidence in our word, we may in the long run lose more than can be repaid by all the gold in Africa.

5.51 p.m.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The whole House is under a debt of gratitude to the hon. Member who drew this place in the Ballot, and has not only given us an early opportunity for a debate on this subject, but has given us the opportunity of hearing a very interesting speech, delivered in physical circumstances which he combated successfully, and on account of which we listened all the more closely. He had something of real interest to say from personal knowledge on the spot, and, in Debates on questions of this kind, personal knowledge acquired on the spot is sometimes of more value than theoretical knowledge advanced with more certainty by persons less fully acquainted with the subject. I should have been very glad if this Debate could have taken place earlier, but I do not think that either I or the Government can be charged with any dereliction of duty in that regard. After all, it is for the Opposition to select the subjects which they wish discussed, and it will be within the recollection of all who were present in the House at the end of last Session that I answered a question, before the Debate on the
Adjournment came on, giving precisely the terms of the amending Ordinance and stating that it had been introduced with my full approval; and there was every opportunity then for anyone who wished to do so to debate this matter. I should have been only too glad, because I am always most anxious to give the House the fullest information possible, if either Opposition had chosen at that time to raise this question, either on the Consolidated Fund Bill or on the Motion for the Adjournment. Therefore, the Government cannot be charged with any dereliction of duty as regards not having given information or not having afforded to the House an opportunity, and we were very glad to get this opportunity now, as soon as the House reassembled.
Two points of view have been expressed in the speeches already delivered. There was the point of view which was taken, as he said quite frankly, by the hon. Member for Rothwell (Mr. Lunn), who was rather pleased with my hon. Friend's simile of the locusts and the Socialists, which I thought was a very good one. The hon. Gentleman said perfectly frankly that he wished to do as much damage as a horde of locusts, that he wished to take any opportunity he possibly could of hitting this Government in any way. We all realise that it is the duty of an Opposition to oppose, but I think it is the duty of an Opposition to exercise a certain sense of responsibility when Imperial affairs are being dealt with. In very marked contrast with the tone of the hon. Gentleman's speech was the much more temperate speech of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R Hamilton), who is acquainted with the earlier stages of this matter. I am afraid I must take up a certain amount of time, because I wish to make to the House the clearest statement that I possibly can, and to put absolutely frankly to the House what the position is, how it has arisen, what is happening, and what has been done, and then to ask the House whether anything else could reasonably have been done.
There is a large measure of agreement on the facts in this case. In the first place, with one or two negligible exceptions, I think everyone agrees that it is in the interest of Kenya—of the native just as much as of the settler—that the gold which is found there should be
worked, and worked to the best advantage. It is also common ground, or, at least, I thought it was until I saw the Socialist Amendment on the Order Paper, that the minerals in Kenya are the property of the Crown. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, speaking as an ex-chief justice, made that point perfectly clear, and, of course, he is quite right. It is laid down in the Order in Council of 1902 that the minerals, on whatever land they may be found, are the property of the Crown. That is also declared by the very Ordinance of which the Labour Government settled the terms, and while they were in office there was continual correspondence on the matter with the Kenya Government. It is also implied in the Native Land Trust Ordinance. Therefore, when these minerals are worked, whether under land which is a native reserve or under the land of a settler, the law is the same with regard to the right to work them, and there is no claim that the whole of the product from the winning of these minerals should be set aside for the natives.

Mr. LUNN: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but may I ask him if all the gold which has been found up to the present is in the native reserves?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I think that practically all the prospecting that has taken place has been inside the native reserves. I want to meet the hon. Gentleman's point, but I do not quite understand it.

Mr. LUNN: The only point I wanted to make was that that may be a justification for the terms of our Amendment.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: It happens that the gold so far discovered is within the native reserves, but supposing that just outside that area minerals are being prospected for under the land of a white man—as may well be the case, though I do not know, and am not speaking with certainty—surely the hon. Gentleman is not going to say that, although the minerals found there belong to the Crown, and the Crown has the right to grant a prospecting licence, they shall all go to that white man? If he would not say that, he cannot really say that minerals found under a native's land should all go to the native. We all want to deal fairly
generously by the native, but do not let us put forward a claim which cannot possibly be justified either in justice, law or common sense.
Let me take the next point, which I think the House should fully appreciate. Everything that has taken place up to the present moment has taken place under the Mining Ordinance which was passed shortly after the Native Lands Trust Ordinance, for the terms of which the right hon. Gentleman and his Government were responsible. It was a practical working Ordinance; although it demands amendment in certain degrees, as all mining legislation does—there is a proposal on foot for amendment at the moment—its broad principles do not require alteration. The whole of the prospecting which is taking place at the present moment, and which gives the man who prospects with success and stakes out a claim a potential right to a lease, has been done under the Mining Ordinance. This Ordinance was passed before my time and has nothing whatever to do with the amending Ordinance which has just passed through the Kenya Legislature. The whole issue therefore narrows down to whether this particular amending Ordinance, the terms of which I announced to the House when we were in Session before Christmas and which governs the granting of leases during the short period before we get the report of the Land Commission, is just and expedient and whether it involves a breach of faith.
Let me observe this: No one has suggested a practicable alternative to what has been done. Everybody agrees that gold is to be worked. An hon. Gentleman on those benches to-day suggested that it ought to be worked by the Government. Frankly I disclaim that proposal entirely. There would be many objections to it, and it would be unfortunate that the Government which has to make regulations to deal with the whole of this matter should be itself the operator. Of all the technical speculative enterprises into which a Government could enter, gold-mining is the worst.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: The hon. Member who made that suggestion also made an alternative suggestion that, in the absence of a Government ownership, a kind of public-private company should
be formed in which the Government should be a shareholder.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: What does that mean? Either it means that the Government take part in the actual risk and invite other people to subscribe some money as well—

Mr. JONES: It is an experiment.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: It is an experiment which I am sure I should not wish to attempt except in very special circumstances. But what does it mean? We are dealing with this very speculative proposition, that the Government find part of the money and invite other people to come in. If the Government went into business in that sort of way, they might soon find the people they dealt with saying, "All right, you have invited us into this enterprise; if it goes right, we will share the profits; if it goes wrong, we expect the Government to bear all the loss." How impossible this kind of speculation would be. I submit, and I am sure that the majority of the House will agree with me, that that would be a very impracticable and undesirable alternative. That being so, let me take the facts and see whether the action which we have taken is reasonable in itself and whether it has been taken on the best and most authoritative advice; and, if that be so, whether there is anything in the spirit and intention of the Native Lands Trust Ordinance which should debar us from taking action which on the face of it is reasonable but which seems inconsistent with the spirit and intention of that Ordinance.
The letter killeth and the spirit maketh alive
is a very great and true saying, and it would be absurd to pretend that the text of that or any other Ordinance is textually inspired, and that its details can never be amended. What matters is the principle, and indeed one of the functions of the Morris Carter Commission— the Land Commission—the terms of reference of which have not been challenged by anybody in this or the other House specifically, is this:
To review the working of the Native Lands Trust Ordinance, and to consider how any administrative difficulties that may already have arisen can best be met, whether by supplemental legislation or otherwise, without involving any departure from the principles of the Ordinance.
Therefore, I say, it is the spirit and principle of that Ordinance that counts. What are the facts? At the end of 1931 miners prospecting under the Mining Ordinance discovered gold in the Kavirondo reserve. The Government of Kenya took the very wise step of calling in to their advice on the technical side —the planning and the prospecting, and so on—the ablest man that they could have called in: Sir Albert Kitson. He has a unique, long, and practical experience in all parts of Africa; he has a great knowledge of and sympathy with the natives; and he made a very extensive survey, not only of the part where prospecting is now taking place, but of the whole area which it was thought might possibly be of a gold-bearing character. He has put the whole thing extraordinarily well in a letter to the "Times" of 17th January, which probably most hon. Members have read. He gave a very plain account of the kind of mining which was likely to take place in that area. I commend that account given by Sir Albert Kitson to anybody who wants to know the real facts.
The most amazing kind of nonsense has been talked by one or two critics. We have had described to us how in a little native reserve there is to be a vast area of extensive mining like the Rand near Johannesburg, Nothing, of course, is further from the truth. If subsequent discovery should lead to the finding that there is an area of wide lateral extent with gold all through it, then you have an entirely new situation to deal with which will have to be met in a new manner, and which will require separate action. But what you have to-day is mining of two kinds. You have, first of all, a great many people engaged on alluvial mining in the beds of the rivers. There are some larger rivers, and also a great many small tributaries, in the valleys or beds of which the gold is found. What is happening there is that people have gone prospecting; the natives are there, but all that kind of alluvial mining in the beds of the rivers is not going to disturb anybody. Nobody has been turned out of his holding, and it provides remunerative employment for a number of natives. Apart from that, there are these veins or bands of gold which are found in different parts of the reserve. Those are being discovered now, and are being prospected under the
Mining Ordinance. Where an actual claim is filed then it may lead to a mining lease. But even where a lease is granted for lode mining the amount of surface which is required for working quite a substantial mine is very small. As Sir Albert Kitson said in his letter:
In the event of a reef proving to be sufficiently large, rich and continuous in length and depth to make a large mine eventually, the surface required for residences, mining plant, etc., will of course be greater,"—
he is saying that very small areas will be required in some cases—
but the area even then required would be a matter of acres only—probably from 20 to 40 acres in each case.
That is the kind of area that would be required. It has also been said that the Government are going to take hundreds of miles and devastate them. Do let us, even if we are going to disagree about action, at any rate get some fairly accurate appreciation of the facts.

Mr. MOLSON: Might I interrupt the right hon. Gentleman just for one moment? If as a matter of fact the disturbance is going to be so small, what is the need of having a special Mining Ordinance? As he himself admits, even if we are carrying out the spirit of the earlier Ordinance, we are amending an Ordinance which was carried for the purpose of giving confidence to the natives.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: If the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to listen to the rest of my speech, he will see why it is necessary. Under the letter of that Ordinance as it stands you could not give a lease for this purpose. But perhaps he will be good enough to allow me to explain to the House exactly why that is. As I said, it was very fortunate that the Kenya Government should have had the advantage of Sir Albert Kitson's advice. I am sure that in planning the lay-out they could have no wiser advice. In addition to that, I think it was fortunate that the Land Commission which was sent out to Kenya in response to and in accordance with the recommendations of the Joint Select Committee and reached in Kenya in August of last year, should have been on the spot and able to consider the whole position. That commission is invited to report upon the whole question of the sufficiency of the existing reserves and on what additions should be made. I am bound to say that I think
that the mining question is not the most difficult question with which the commission, will be faced. They are extraordinarily well equipped for their task. There is Sir Morris Carter; he has a unique experience in dealing with this matter of native reserves. There is Mr. Hemsted; a very able native commissioner, now retired, who, incidentally, was for many years a district commissioner in this very Kavirondo area, and knows it like the back of his hand. There is also Captain Frank Wilson. They are, I think, as able a body as you could possibly get to report on this matter.
The problem with which the Kenya Government was faced was the granting of leases, and how these leases were to be granted in the interim period before the Carter Commission makes its final report and before that report can be considered and legislated upon. It would be a report of very great importance dealing with a large number of matters which, obviously, require considerable time for consideration. The problem is urgent in the sense that it is obviously very undesirable to hold up the proper sequence of development of this mine-field. It is not a problem of any great magnitude. The Governor has estimated—it is an outside estimate—the area for which the surface is likely to be required in this interim period as being 1,000 acres, which is one and a-half square miles out of a total reserve area of the Kavirondo area reserve of over 7,000 square miles. That gives one some idea of the magnitude of the matter. Let me put to the House the authoritative advice which the Government of Kenya took in order to decide the right, equitable and practicable course to follow. The Chief Native Commissioner was consulted. This is his recommendation. The Commissioner of the Province who knows the area was consulted. There is the Native Lands Trust Board who are the trustees for administering the reserves.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: No natives on them yet.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: There is none on them now, it is quite true, and it would have been very foolish to force it. I will tell the right hon. and gallant Gentleman why. If I may say so, it is very curiously informed criticism to come from him. The Trust Board has
to administer the reserves in which many different tribes are interested. There are conflicts of interest between these tribes and very often these disputes as to whether a particular tribe, or a particular section of a tribe, has a right over a bit of land. Nothing could be more futile than to put on to this Board of trustees who have to administer the whole in the interests of all tribes a representative of one tribe. Anyone who knows anything about the matter—the Select Committee drew attention to it—realises that it would be asking for trouble if you did anything like that. [Interruption.] The Native Lands Trust Board has recommended it. Sir Albert Kitson has recommended it. The Government of Kenya recognised that the Carter Commission were charged with a great judicial inquiry covering the question of the reserves, their adequacy and their administration, and they rightly said that they could not take even a temporary step without being sure that the Carter Commission thought that it was a right course. The Carter Commission had the whole matter put to them and the Commission said, "This is what we think is the wisest course to take in the interim period before you get the final report." So far from saying that this was a rushed Ordinance taken without consideration, I would say to the House that no Member has ever known of a case of Colonial legislation which was more carefully considered and which had behind it a greater chain of authority than the legislation which has been challenged to-day. The terms of the Ordinance grant surface leases up to 21 years, and renewal, if necessary, and at the end of the time the land reverts to the reserve. I have given the Governor's estimate of the acreage. At the outside it is probably a question of moving, or partly moving, 300 natives, including their families. That is the outside estimate.
In dealing with an exclusion from the reserve, taking the small bits of surface which are part of the reserve, you have two definite problems to consider. I beg of the House to approach this matter in a practical way and to get it quite clear. You have, first of all, the problem of the individual native who is, or may be, displaced. You have, secondly, a different problem. It is the problem of the
adequacy of the reserve as a whole. I will take the case of the individual native first. The last thing in the world such a man wants is to be taken miles away from the place where he is living and farming and put among people whom he does not know. That is what the Amendment to the Motion suggests. The Amendment, if it means anything, says that you ought to take the native and settle him upon other land right away outside the reserve.

Mr. LUNN: I did not say "right away."

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Will the hon. Gentleman try to obtain some little knowledge of the facts? There is no adjoining land which can be taken. Therefore, if you were to add the nearest land you could get you would have to take them away at least 20 miles, or probably more, in order to settle them. I think that any natives to whom you made such a proposition would say, "Save us from our friends!" The native wants to be allowed to go on occupying and working his land as near as possible to the place he occupies to-day where he has an opportunity of remunerative employment, and has, for the first time, a good market. All the talk that this development was something which would be disastrous to the native is utterly untrue. What have you got? You have, on the one hand, as my hon. Friend who knows the position so well said, unemployment created because prices have fallen and only a certain number of natives can be employed on the farms. You have natives seeking work. You have an unemployment problem as we have to-day. You have the natives failing to get a reasonable price for their produce because there is not a market. The export market price has fallen and the local market price has fallen, and now, apparently for the first time, there is a chance of employment and a remunerative market for what the native is producing. It is one of the most hopeful things that could happen to the country. It would be criminal, unless it were absolutely unavoidable, to take such a man away from where he is to-day and put him some 20, 30 or 40 miles away, as the Labour party suggest. Therefore, that man is going to be left, either on part of the holding where he and his people are now, or, if it is not prac-
ticable, settled among his neighbours. The hon. Gentleman suggested that it cannot be done. The responsible administrators on the spot say that it can be done, and I prefer to take their word against his insinuation.

Mr. LUNN: I made no insinuation.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Not only is he going to get this land, but there is to be compensation. The measure of compensation is to be at least as much as would be paid to a white settler if you were taking the mineral rights on part of the holding away from him. It is laid down in the Ordinance. Great care has been taken in the matter. I want to go into detail to show the House how meticulously careful they have been. It has been provided that not only should a man have the land but that he should have full compensation. They have taken the very wise course that cash compensation shall not be paid over to the native in a lump sum, but that it shall be paid into a local fund in order that it shall be paid out in instalments, which, I think, is a very reasonable and practical thing to do. We are following exactly the course envisaged during the time of my predecessors should development take place. That is the problem of the individual native, and is there anybody who can say that the individual native is not being dealt with fairly?
Then there is the problem, which I said was a separate one, of the adequacy of the reserve. Of course, if the reserve were so crowded that the temporary displacement of a few hundred people was going to cause a crisis, your reserve problem would be upon you at the present moment. It would mean that the ordinary increase in a year or two would land you in a difficult position. That is not what we are up against. What we are up against is the ultimate adequacy. The Carter Commission will report upon the matter, and they can be trusted to do so in a thoroughly practical 'and sympathetic manner. It would be impracticable to deal with the matter in any other way. These leases, as Sir Albert Kitson has pointed out, are very small in extent, some of a few acres only, 20, 40 or 50 acres it may be, for varying periods. Some have a short time to run; it may be five, years, or possibly a surrender sooner. Some are for 21 years. Suppose
you stuck to the absolute letter of the law and said, "Whenever you make a lease, however small or for however short a period, you have to add another bit of land of the same size to the reserve," you would be in a ridiculous position. It would be utterly impracticable, and no man with any common sense would deal with it in that way. The Lands Trust Ordinance entirely failed to envisage mining development as it is likely to take place. That is the simple fact. We have to deal comprehensively with the adequacy of the reserve when we know what is likely to be the full extent of the mining operations and their effect upon the reserve, and we shall certainly do so.
The suggestion that we are not going to add land to the reserve is quite without foundation. What I ask the House to agree to as being reasonable is, that we should deal with the matter when we know the effect upon the reserve of the mining upon the surface of the reserve which is likely to take place. I think that that is a very reasonable way of dealing with the whole of the matter. The whole administration is carried out with sympathy and common sense. Is there anything in the spirit of the Ordinance which precludes us from taking those very reasonable steps? Section 15, which has been quoted, provides that where exclusion is made the land shall be added. Charges of breach of faith have been bandied about, but they have not been founded on the intention or the spirit of what is being done, but based on a technicality. We had better make a careful examination of the Ordinance itself, because if their charge means anything, it means that wherever you take land from the reserve, lease it for however short a term, it is an obligation under the Ordinance to add equivalent land.
The House will be surprised to learn, those who have not read this Ordinance will be surprised to learn, that the Ordinance itself, in Section 7 and the following Sections, provide that leases may be granted of land which is not for the time being in beneficial occupation of the natives, up to 99 years in certain cases, without any provision being made as to land being added to the reserve as compensation. If we were dealing with land which at this moment was not actually being occupied by the natives, land which had not a native sitting on it
I, or the Governor of Kenya, could, without any breach of this Ordinance, give a surface lease for 99 years without adding a quarter of an acre to the reserve. How ridiculous, therefore, is this charge of breach of faith. We propose not to deal with the letter of the law but with the whole spirit of it, which is to deal fairly with the individual native and to see that the reserves are adequate as a whole for their purpose. That is what we propose to do.
There is only one further matter which is dealt with in the Ordinance on which I was challenged. It is the provision which says that it shall not be necessary to bring to the notice of the Native Council each particular case of proposed exclusion. The object of the Clause as it originally stood contemplated quite plainly that permanent exclusion of a definite piece of land for a separate purpose required that the Native Council should be summoned in order that it might know. The object of bringing the Native Council together is that they may know the facts; it is for information and consultation. Here, however, the Governor of Kenya thought, and I think he was perfectly right, that the way in which he could best bring the whole of these facts and the whole of the position to the notice of the natives was not only that he should go round himself, but that the Native Commissioner should go round and have meetings of the natives in places where they were likely to be affected and explain the whole position to them, and, in addition, to circulate to those who can read the Memorandum to which reference has been made. As a matter of common sense, that is far and away the most practical method in which the Governor of Kenya could have brought the general question to the notice of the natives themselves. It would be really absurd every time you wanted to make a small lease to collect together a Council which consists of 64 people, many of them coming from parts of the reserve utterly unaffected by the matter in question, when you have the general explanation given and when you have the further provision made that every single lease has to come before the special local board, on which the individual natives concerned in the area will be represented. Are we not carrying out the spirit of that
provision when we follow the line which we have adopted?
I have dealt at considerable length with the position as it stands. I have dealt with what the Government of Kenya, with my full approval—I take full responsibility—has done in this matter, and I submit to the House that all that has been done has been done on the highest authority. By that I mean on the best informed authority that could be obtained. It has been thoughtful and practical. I want to pay a tribute to the men on the spot. I do not mind how much I am criticised in this House. We are here to be shot at; that is all right, but do not make unduly difficult the lot of administrators in the provinces of your Empire, who are actuated by the most disinterested motives. It is right to say that the Governor of Kenya or the Chief Native Commissioner in Kenya or the men serving under them are actuated by nothing but the most disinterested motives in serving the interests of the natives. They are really as good judges as to what is keeping faith with the native as any of us.
I should like also to pay a tribute to the men who are doing the prospecting. They have been attacked. I have seen attacks in the Press, violent attacks, statements that there have been rows between them and the natives. That is not true. I have talked to Sir Albert Kitson, who has had great experience of African natives, and he told me what the relationship was between these settlers and the men working for them— admirable. You have there an example of exactly the kind of relationship that you want in a minefield. You may perhaps get just the type of mine where the local native is able to find work in the locality and still lead his own life. You have a relationship between the white settlers and the native that is one of the things of which we may very well be proud. I want to say to-night in this House that I wish the people out there, not only the Government but the white settlers, to be assured that the House of Commons is not going to see them traduced, without some protest.
There are two classes of critics. There are those who are genuinely anxious to see and to be assured that native interests are fully safeguarded. I think it would be wiser if even the critics who
fall into that class would take care to acquaint themselves with the facts before they express opinions in public. We might expect a very distinguished ex-Colonial Governor-General to come to the Colonial Office to find out the facts before he makes statements publicly. The Colonial Office are not very unapproachable. They are prepared to give the facts when they are approached. There are those who are genuinely anxious—I range myself on their aide and I think the whole of the House of Commons will do so—that the native interests should be safeguarded, and I say that responsible men out in Kenya, officers of the Government, are just as jealous of the rights and privileges of the natives as any of us are, and that we can, on the facts as we now know them, have complete confidence in them.
Our record as a Government in this matter, as it is challenged, is not so bad. Look at what we have done in Kenya since the National Government have been in office. The Carter Commission has gone out. We sent that Commission out as soon as things could be arranged after the Joint Select Committee had reported. Lord Moyne was sent out on a special mission with regard to the equity of native taxation. We did that. A Native Betterment Fund is to be set up in the next Estimates, in accordance with Lord Moyne's recommendation. I am entitled to refer to these matters when our record as a Government is challenged and our character is being attacked as people who are not considering the native interests. While there are critics who are genuinely anxious, and I am with them, to see that the native interests are protected, I say advisedly that there are other critics who seek on an occasion of this kind to attack the Government of Kenya and the Government at home, and who are not slow to try to stir up trouble between the natives and the white men. Critics of that kind are serving no interests at all, least of all the interests of the natives whose interests, happily, are in more disinterested keeping. I have given this very full explanation to the House and I ask the House to support the action which the Government in Kenya have taken as being wise, just and practical, and to repudiate one of the least founded charges ever
advanced, namely, the charge of breach of faith.

5.43 p.m.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I should like to begin by extending my sympathy to the right hon. Gentleman and, indeed, to make him the apology which I think is due from a good many of us in this House. He was perfectly right in saying that we could have raised this question last Session. He answered very fully questions put to him then, and we could have brought the matter up then. Perhaps we in this House neglected some of our trusteeship of the native races in not bringing up the matter then. I thought then, and I will frankly say now that I thought the right hon. Gentleman was making the best of a bad business and that there was nothing we could really do to help the situation. I felt then, and I still feel, after the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, that the right hon. Gentleman has perhaps a little more conscience on these matters than most of his predecessors, and that in dealing with the situation which he had inherited he was making the best of it.
I have not said a word on this issue up till now in the Press or in public, because I did not raise the question when I could have raised it. The most heartening thing about the whole business is the way in which, although we professional defenders of the natives did not do our duty, public opinion in the country did its duty. The fact that this matter has been taken up not only by Lord Lugard but by even the "Times," the "Observer" and the "Manchester Guardian," is a really wonderful tribute to the decency of English public opinion. The case is not perhaps as strong as might have been made in the past, but at least we have people on the other side of the House as much as on this side saying that we have not done quite the right thing by the Kenya natives. Within the ambit of the Native Land Ordinance I think the right hon. Gentleman has done his best. He had the Ordinance to work, and he has thrown in our teeth to-night the most damaging section of that Ordinance, the section which says that, although land cannot be alienated, the land in a reserve may be leased up to 99 years. He rightly asked
what is the difference between a 99 years' lease and complete alienation.
I remember the insertion of that section in the Native Lands Ordinance. It was put in by the Kenya Legislature. Everyone in this country who knew what it meant protested against it. We debated the question in this House, and the Secretary of State for the Colonies, I am not sure who it was, assured us that the provision was intended solely that the Government might lease areas in the native reserve in order to establish experimental farms and allow the experience of some white settler to extend to the natives themselves. As a matter of fact, as the right hon. Gentleman has shown, the insertion of this provision has knocked the whole of the Native Lands Ordinance sideways. But the good sense of the country has realised that it is not so much the letter of the Ordinance which matters as the assurance that was given to the natives at the time when the Native Lands Ordinance was passed. They had their Magna Charta at last. All the old land history of the past, the removal of the Masai, the cutting down of the reserves of the native races was to come to an end. The natives got their assurance. I am not certain that they were satisfied with it, perhaps they were not so satisfied as we were in this House, but still it was their Magna Charta, a pledge, that in future the natives were not to be deprived of that which they valued more than life itself, the land on which to live and work for themselves.
The right hon. Gentleman has told us that there is an unemployment problem in Kenya. There is no unemployment problem in Kenya as we know it here. It is almost possible to say that there is no unemployment in the whole of tropical Africa. All that is required there is that man should scratch the land and it will bring forth all the means of life. An unemployment problem only arises when man is divorced from the land. There is still land enough in Kenya for the natives to live on their own, and while they have enough land there will be no unemployment problem. That is why the long history of British administration in Kenya is one long struggle to solve the labour problem, to get labour at a reasonably cheap rate by taking away the land so that the natives have to work for a
master. [Interruption.] Hon. Members will remember the evidence given by a settler that if the natives were to retain their land there would be no settlement of the labour problem in Kenya. As long as they had land to work themselves they would never work for a master. It is not an unemployment problem; the trouble is that there is too much employment.
That, however, is a side issue. The question is: Can we do anything now to restore to the natives the confidence which was given them by the passing of the Native Lands Ordinance Act? At the first temptation that charter of the natives seems to have been broken. From the point of view of the natives in the Kakamega Reserve the officers of the Government have done their best for the individual native. He will still be able to work where he has worked before. He will have better markets for his vegetables, better opportunities to earn his hut money—as long as it is not increased—and he will have a far better chance than the natives in Northern Rhodesia, or the Transvaal. But that is not the point. The point is, how can we restore faith in the British word in the whole population of Kenya, Tanganyika and Uganda? They have an incredible faith in the white man's word. The white man who lets down the white man's word is considered to be the worst enemy of the British race by the white settlers. We have to be far more scrupulously careful about carrying out our word in East Africa than we have even in paying the American Debt. Admitting that up to now the Government have done everything possible in the case, I still ask them to do something more. It is not good enough to say that we will leave it to the Morris Carter Commission. That Commission is not responsible for Britain's good name, although I am quite prepared to trust any Member of this House to be as careful of an Englishman's good name as I am myself. Party does not come into a matter of this sort at all. What we want is to be sure that in future we shall convey to the native races the certainty, the confidence, that our word is as good now as it has been in the past. That can still be done.
It is true that we are not compelled by the Native Lands Ordinance to add to the reserves. It is perfectly true that
the Morris Carter Commission may report an increase in these reserves, but that is not good enough. I should, like a statement from the Government saying that whether the area of land alienated for mines is large or small, even if it is only half an acre, they will see that the native reserve in Northern Kavirondo is increased by the same amount. It can be increased because adjoining the reserve there is an area which has not been developed and which can be repurchased by the State from the profits of the gold mining. This could be added to the native reserve, and we should be keeping not merely the letter but the spirit of our promise. It would not be very expensive. It would not cost £200,000,000 —only about £2,000. And it is worth it.
I beg the right hon. Gentleman to do one other thing. Hitherto the idea in East Africa has been that the native should work for himself in the reserve but that outside he should only have an. opportunity of working for a master. Now that we are bringing all the fruits of Western civilisation into this part of prehistoric Africa, now that it is important that the old communal system should be able to compete with modern industrial development and civilisation, we should take the obvious step of allowing the native to get away from his tribal system, allow those spirits in the tribe who want to leave the reserve and do something for themselves, those who have some individual initiative and enterprise, to get away from the reserve.
Do hon. Members know that the native in Kenya, not in Tanganyika, is not able to buy a square inch of land, is not able to lease any land? He cannot buy a bit of land; he cannot hold any land even in his own reserve in his individual name —and this at a time when our education is gradually spreading among the natives. There is no opportunity of individual development, which to my mind is the only possible means of preventing the exploitation of the old tribal system when modern capitalism is imposed upon it. Is it not possible for the right hon. Gentleman to ask the Governor of Kenya, in view of the possible industrial development in the colony, whether it is possible to repeal whatever law it is which prevents the native from acquiring land either by lease or purchase outside the reserve? It is a horrible injustice that they should not be allowed to hold
land. That is about the best for which one can hope from the present situation. With the law as it is the right hon. Gentleman has done his best, but in addition we have to prove conclusively that we are carrying out the last letter and detail of our promise that the native lands shall no longer be diminished in quantity by any temporary or permanent alienation. Secondly, we should use this opportunity of giving that elementary right to the native of allowing him in a world of individualism, in the industrial world which is coming upon him, to own his own house and his bit of land so that he can fight for himself in the new conditions instead of being preserved helpless, ignorant, children for ever as under a glass case.
The right hon. Gentleman has tackled many problems during his short time at the Colonial Office in a way which has given me great hope for the future. I think he does want to make the British Empire a bit more British. He is trying to make British culture extend itself. He and I think of Egypt as a place where we have more or less ruled for 50 years, where our precious officials, excellent men, still talk bad French. He has done something in Cyprus almost radical. He has done something in Malta. I am not quite certain how that experiment is getting on. He is doing something in Palestine. He has done even more in Malaya. He is trying to fit these fellow native subjects of ours for the new struggle of life by giving them a chance of knowing the only language which is worth knowing in that struggle. I am not at all certain that that is not the right spirit. It should be applied in Kenya in the same way. I say, give a man a chance, take him out of his tribe, or let him get out of his tribe, and let him try to become a civilised individual.
I think that the right hon. Gentleman and the House may congratulate themselves on this Debate. It is a very useful thing that in this House we should discuss these subjects. As I sat in my place this afternoon I thought to myself: "I wonder what it would be like if they had a Debate on this subject at Cape Town?" Well, if the right hon. Gentleman made there the sort of speech he has made here, I think he would have some trouble with General Hertzog. We have some rather good standards, rather good old-
fashioned principles, or prejudices if you like, in this country. We have the ideal that we are trustees in this House of our less fortunate fellow citizens elsewhere. I say to the right hon. Gentleman, carry on the good work.

6.4 p.m.

Dr. WILLIAM McLEAN: At the outset I would refer for a moment to the principles of colonial development. These are, briefly, that unless it is possible to produce something portable, such for instance as cotton, tea or gold, it is not possible to continue to advance the standard of living of a rapidly increasing native population. Populations have doubled themselves largely owing to improved sanitary and other conditions which we have given to the natives. The alternative to development is to leave the native with the superstitions and the diseases which are associated with the primitive state of most of these people. That, of course, is unthinkable, and, as the Secretary of State informed us, development is necessary. Turning from the economic aspect to the moral one, which I think is the more important, I remember that many years ago a young official was concerned with the removal of a native village from a low-lying, unhealthy mud flat, for a distance of a mile to a higher and healthier site. At first the villagers were rather shy about it, but when they saw the well-planned new village they became quite enthusiastic and full of joy. However, the joy of the officials who were concerned with the project was rather damped by criticisms made in this House, from which it was made to appear that we had dragged the weeping villagers from ivy-covered cottages and had sent them into the wilderness to build for themselves. The picture was so grotesque, unreal and unfair that I am afraid many of us said some very hard things about politicians.
Those of us who have had long experience among natives know, as the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton) said, that it is very difficult to understand the working of the native mind; but one thing is certain, and that is that the allegations which we have heard recently regarding Kenya will almost certainly have a most harmful effect upon the native, for the reason that they tend to shatter that confidence and
trust in the officials and in the Government, which means so much to these native people, who look upon the officials and the Government very much as a child looks upon a parent. It takes long years of endeavour by sympathetic officials to build up such confidence. The garbled accounts which will run through the villages of the criticisms in this country will certainly do very much to destroy that confidence. Much of the criticism regarding Kenya seems to have been based on a misunderstanding. That is a great misfortune; in view of the native psychology it is a great pity that so much publicity has been given to it. Even if there were any wrong to be righted, surely there are much quieter and more effective ways of doing it.
I would say a word in praise of our Colonial service. It is undoubtedly one of the finest services in the world. It entails a life of hardship in unhealthy, tropical countries, in most cases; a life which means devotion to native interests and demands a continual exercise of the very best human qualities. The Secretary of State and the Government as well as the local authorities are to be congratulated on the care which they have taken to plan the economic development of Kenya so that the native shall not suffer, in fact so that he will gain very materially. I believe that by recognising that fact this House can do much to restore a great deal of the prestige which will certainly have been lost through recent unfortunate criticisms. Although criticisms are made in good faith and with the best intentions, it does not lessen the damage done.

6.12 p.m.

Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: This House has been discussing a matter of very high importance. It touches a fundamental point in the relations between the Governments of the British Empire and the native populations. The question is not to be brushed aside on the ground that it is brought forward merely by persons who do not know what the facts are, that it is the outcome of prejudice or ignorance or a desire merely to attack the settlers of Kenya or the officials on the spot or the Government here. Such explanations are absurd when the whole country knows that attention was drawn to this matter in the first place by the greatest living British Colonial admini-
strator, Lord Lugard, who knows more about these matters than any other man in this country, who is also the representative of Great Britain on the Mandates Commission of the League of Nations, where continually month after month and year after year he has been dealing with these very land questions as affecting mandated territories.
My hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton), who spoke to-day and made such a well-informed and fully documented speech, has spent years of his life in Kenya. For many years he was the Chief Justice of the Colony, and he would not speak in the terms he used without drawing upon his long experience there. The correspondence which has taken place in the Press has emanated largely from men with a life-long acquaintance with these native questions—the Archdeacon of Kavirondo and many others there. I do not profess to any personal knowledge of the colony, although I travelled all through that country many years ago and learnt much of the excellent reputation that was borne by this particular tribe whose lands are in question. That was 30 years ago. They were then a tribe of primitive simplicity, one of the few tribes that still dispensed completely with clothing, and they bore the reputation of being a tribe that maintained the highest standard of morality of any in that part of Africa.
This matter cannot be brushed aside as being one of trivial importance. The Colonial Secretary said "After all it is only a question of one-and-a-half square miles." He is really not treating the House fairly when he tries to reduce it to those dimensions. As a matter of fact several hundreds of square miles have been or are being opened up for prospecting. Only a few days ago there was published the report of the geologist who is employed there, Sir Albert Kitson, who speaks of a prospecting licence being applied for to cover nearly 6,000 square miles. His report, says the "Times":
will considerably widen the area of native land affected by the gold discoveries.
Gold appears to extend also in the Kikuyu country. The "Times" report from East Africa comments—
The land question will be even more difficult in Kikuyu.
Nor is this matter one merely of temporary small leases for a few weeks or months, which obviously could not be dealt with by giving equivalent grants of land elsewhere. These leases may be given, under the Ordinance, for a period of five to 12 years, and then they are renewable; and when it is suggested that the natives are merely stirred up to alarm by criticisms in this country and speeches in this House and correspondence in the Press, that is not the fact. There was published a few days ago the annual report of the Native Affairs Department of Kenya Colony. There these words are used:
The area of the discovery is situated in a densely populated and closely cultivated part of the native reserve. In fact the natives regard the entry of European prospectors with great misgiving, fearing for the security of their land.
The report further states:
In spite of the sensible manner in which the natives have hitherto accepted the situation, it would be idle to deny that they view the advent of our prospectors with profound distrust.
And again:
In spite of all explanations they remain bewildered and are genuinely nervous as to their fate.
These are not expressions used by people who are ignorant of the matter or by those who, for evil motives, desire to attack this or that section. These are extracts from an official report of the Native Affairs Department of the Colony. Therefore, this House is obliged to treat the matter with the utmost seriousness. The right hon. Gentleman in the public statement which he issued said that the criticism was due to "misunderstanding" and I think that word has been used more than once in the Debate to-day. There is no misunderstanding whatever. The matter is crystal clear. An Ordinance was passed in Kenya—it is true under pressure from the home Government— which said, in terms, that if land had to be taken away from the native reserves for mining purposes, an equivalent area should be given in exchange. It said further that no action of that kind should be taken without the native councils being informed and having an opportunity of making their own representations in defence of their own interests.
Those were perfectly clear pledges. The native reserved lands were guaranteed to them for ever. The natives relied upon
those pledges. Now, with the full approval of the right hon. Gentleman, an amending Ordinance has been passed which says that when land is taken away for that purpose, equivalent land need not be given. It says further that the native councils need not be informed and need not be given any opportunity of representing their own point of view and defending their own interests. There is no misunderstanding and no possibility of misunderstanding. The previous Ordinance said those two things and the new Ordinance simply repeals them. The right hon. Gentleman says that no pledge has been broken and he chides those who suggest that there has been a breach of faith in this matter. That is not the view of the late Governor of Kenya, Sir Edward Grigg, who, in a letter to the "Times" published on 6th January, said it was a very great mistake ever to have given those pledges which necessarily had to be broken because they went too far. He wrote:
When Lord Passfield incorporated in the Ordinance the pledge which has now been broken he knew that in the opinion of every member of the Kenya Executive Council that pledge could not with certainty be honoured and, therefore, ought not to be given.
He says that he himself advised the Government at home not to give that pledge. He says that that advice was disregarded and that "another pledge has, in consequence, been violated." That being the publicly expressed opinion of the late Governor of the Colony, the right hon. Gentleman cannot now get up in the House and say that the pledge has not been violated. He may say that the pledge ought never to have been given, that it was foolish and that it had to be withdrawn. He may, indeed, say that circumstances have arisen which compel us to violate it, but he cannot say that the pledge has not been violated, because it is perfectly clear that it has been violated. That is the seriousness of the whole situation. I make one other quotation, this time from a distinguished British official who has spent many years of his life in Kenya, Dr. Drake-Brockman. This is what he says in a letter in the public Press two or three weeks ago:
During my 16 years as an official in different parts of East Africa the natives frequently asked me whether the Government ever intended to take away their lands,
and I venture to think that most officials at some time or other have had the same question asked them. The natives are always assured by us that the British Government never broke its pledges.
He also says:
Should we break our pledges to the Kavirondo now, without finding an equitable solution of the difficulty, the result may be far-reaching, probably far beyond the confines of Kenya Colony, and may shake the very foundations of our African Colonial Empire.
So, we are not dealing with any matter so small and unimportant as the Colonial Secretary would wish the House of Commons to believe. What has been the right hon. Gentleman's own defence of the action which he has taken? He says: "After all I have urged that the individual native disposssessed should be provided with other land among his neighbours." Those well acquainted with the Land Customs of the Kavirondo realise that it would be extremely difficult to achieve that purpose, but in any case that is not the pledge that was given. The pledge given was not that if any area of land was taken away from the reserve those dispossessed should be pushed in among those who were left. The pledge was that the area of land for the reserve should not be diminished and that if one part were taken away other contiguous land should be provided.
Then the right hon. Gentleman tells us that there is no land available, that there is no contiguous land and that in any case what the native wants is to obtain land near by, and not to remove 20 or perhaps 50 miles to some other part of the country and to a strange location where he would feel himself isolated and out of his accustomed surroundings. Later the right hon. Gentleman said: "Of course, if the mining area is considerable and the native reserves prove to be overcrowded then it would be necessary to provide more land." These two arguments are inconsistent with one another. Our complaint is that he has not said specifically, now, that if the mining development of this goldfield, which may take an enormous scope because the reef appears to be very rich, does require any appreciable area of native land to be withdrawn for any appreciable period—I do not say a few weeks or months—then, as a matter of principle, an equivalent area of land will in fact be provided. That pledge has
never been given, and that, if I may venture to say so, is the mistake which the Government have made from the beginning. Had they said that at the outset the strong feeling that has been aroused here and in Africa would have been at all events mitigated. But they never said that, and the reason why the official explanation published by the Colonial Office did not allay the misgivings aroused was because it seemed to go out of its way not to say that. The official statement said:
It has already been said that exclusion for a mining lease is not permanent exclusion. It may well be that a further area of land should ultimately be added to the reserves as additional compensation to the natives as a whole for the temporary exclusion of the land included in the lease.
"It may well be" that that should be done, and the Government are to await the report of the Morris Carter Commission; that is to say they are giving to that commission the authority of the British Government to override, if they think well, a pledge definitely given to the native population in the Ordinance which has now been amended. That is the gravamen of the charge which is made— that instead of specifically saying "In all of the circumstances, we, the British Government, will adhere to the pledge given in the 1930 Ordinance," they say, "It may well be that circumstances will arise in which it may prove desirable to adhere to our pledge and revert to the previous situation."
What then, in the view of many, and I think of all on these benches, is the course that ought to be taken? Clearly, the goldfield must be developed. There is universal agreement upon that point and some modification is unavoidable in the present arrangement with regard to native lands. I do not share the view and I do not think any of my hon. Friends share the view which has been expressed opposite that it might be desirable for the Government of the Colony to undertake to operate this goldfield. I think that would be the worst possible course. In the first place, it would be a very speculative enterprise for the Government of any Colony to develop a goldfield. It would risk public money and would very likely lose it, or, at all events, might lose it. In the second place, and much more important, the function of a Government is to govern, and to regulate the relations between employers and em-
ployed, where necessary to protect the rights of the natives who are employed and to deal with all the social questions that arise when a considerable mining population is gathered together. If the Government then is in the position of an employer of the natives, it cannot take the attitude of impartiality which is desirable. Therefore, that proposition ought to be ruled out from the possibilities of the case.
The Government ought certainly to exercise a large measure of control to see that the goldfield is developed in a properly considered and well-planned fashion and, further, it ought to secure for the benefit of the Colony a very considerable proportion of the wealth which is drawn from its soil. A royalty of 5 per cent, seems to be quite inadequate and, since the natives are the vast majority of the population of the Colony, this levy ought to be largely devoted to the advantage of the native population. Again, in our view the Government would be wise to state frankly, here and now, that the principle of land for land will be maintained, and to state it without qualification and without going into all sorts of ingenious explanations of the difficulty of obtaining land and so forth. They ought to say: "This is a matter of principle, the British Government are pledged to it and that pledge will be maintained." Thirdly, it is essential that the provision in the Ordinance should be restored which gives to the native councils the full right of consultation and of making representation before any action is taken in these matters so closely touching native interests and native sentiments.
As I said at the outset, we are dealing here as a House of Commons with a matter of fundamental importance in Imperial administration. Our military force in the great portion of Africa for which we are responsible is very small. We have to depend upon moral force; and so far from it being the case that these criticisms are likely to arouse and stimulate discontent in the African possessions quite the contrary is the case. It is much more calculated to allay, and what is more important to obviate, discontent if these millions of native population, some of whose leaders are intelligent and well-acquainted with these affairs and watch the course of public events, as it affects them and
those whom they represent—if these natives know that in this House there as recourse from decisions made on the spot. The right hon. Gentleman says that we ought to depend upon the administrators in the locality. They sometimes make mistakes. The history of the British Empire has given many instances of that, and it is right that the African peoples should, by this Debate, be helped to understand that the House of Commons is very sensitive on these matters and very determined to ensure the rights of subject populations, and to secure for them justice as scrupulous as any accorded to our own citizens.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. WISE: All those who have hitherto spoken in favour of the Amendment to this Motion seem to me to have concentrated on urging the Government to do something which the Government have already announced they have every intention of doing, and to that extent to be belabouring a very dead donkey. They have announced themselves that they will give land for land taken from the natives, but they are prudently waiting to see how much land they want to take from one area to give compensation in another. The idea of distributing land piecemeal would be quite obviously wrong. I think the House should know more of the facts of the occupation of the country by the British. The native population at first was grouped into a series of hostile tribes, separated from each other in most cases by very large stretches of wholly uninhabited country, on which they used to drive their herds for pasture, while keeping their more athletic young men well armed to see that no raiding party removed them. Those vacant areas are almost entirely such lands as are now outside the native reserves.
The actual lands inhabited by the tribes, in which they have their dwellings and their villages, are almost all secured by the arrival of the British administration, and not only that, but the British administration has made it possible for them to maintain their lands. Had it not been for the presence of the British officered police, undoubtedly very grave changes would have taken place in the composition of those native reserves already. For instance, the Kisii would
almost certainly have removed vast stretches from the Southern Kavirondo, and as the sole reason for the existence of the reserves is vested in the British Crown, surely it is in reason that the British Crown should have some discretion in the adjustment and re-allotment of them as the economic circumstances of the country demand. Had the British not gone there to administer the country, it would now be very nearly a desert, and even the happy naked Kavirondo, to whom the right hon. Gentleman referred, would probably have ceased to exist, though I think that the particular Kavirondo with whom we are now dealing never were naked in their lives. The absence of clothes was confined entirely to the Zulus, who live well to the south.
Inside this structure maintained by the British Government there is an extraordinarily complicated system of native land tenure, which varies from tribe to tribe. In some tribes there are very large native landowners, and the bulk of the population are only tenants at will on their estates. It is quite untrue to say, as has been said, that the Kenya native has not in fact owned his land. His title may not be recognised by our courts, because he has no title deeds, but it is well recognised by the native courts, and the decisions of the native courts are maintained by the district and provincial administration. It is impossible to give the individual native a title as we know it. For one reason, even the boundaries of his land very often exist only in the imagination of a defunct great-grandfather, and no living witness can be produced who can swear where the boundary actually was. On the other hand, as the hon. Member says, they will produce witnesses, none the less.
In the particular area under consideration, the system of land tenure is, I believe, almost entirely on the clan basis. There is, in fact, no private ownership there. Cultivation of the land in large areas belongs to certain clans and is cultivated by their individual members. In other words, in spite of what the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) has said, this is almost the easiest area in all Kenya Colony to remove the population from one part and find them the land on which they can grow their crops near by, because that
land belongs to their clans. On the other hand, it is not easy to add an equivalent acreage, say, 1,000 acres or whatever the sum is, of the native reserve well away from Kakamega, which is not on the borders of the North Kavirondo reserve, and to allot that land well away from the native reserves and then start what will have to be a snowball movement. Clan "A," having given up its thousand acres, would have to be given a thousand acres from Clan "B," which would take another thousand acres from Clan "C," which in turn would ultimately spill over to the new area. It is not practicable.

Sir H. SAMUEL: Did the hon. Member not say at the beginning of his speech that land was going to be given for land?

Mr. WISE: I said that land will be given for land, but not in these piecemeal and small dollops, which are totally impossible, and also not until the Government of the Colony has made up its mind whether or not the land will be permanently alienated. We do not even know if this land is going to be occupied for two years or three years. It may be for only one year, for all we know. The goldfield may have much or little gold in it; if it is like previous gold finds in Kenya, it has very little. There is another point on which I think we must dwell as well. We can admit that this displacement can be done in this area with less trouble than in almost any other part of the Colony. The question is whether the displacement should be done at all, and I will ask hon. Members to consider the financial position of Kenya Colony. It has a debt of about £16,000,000.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: And no Income Tax!

Mr. WISE: No Income Tax, but also no incomes. How that debt was incurred is not our concern. It may have been wasted money, and in very many instances it probably was, but there the debt is—£16,000,000, with interest and sinking fund of at least £800,000 a year. What the revenue of the Colony is this year I cannot say, but in 1926, which was a prosperous year, it was under £1,500,000, of which about £600,000 or rather less was produced by the Hut Tax and about the same amount by the Customs. In this last year, whatever the revenue may amount to, the Hut Tax has
almost certainly fallen, because there has been less employment of natives on European farms, and therefore the district officers will undoubtedly have been far more generous in giving exemption certificates than otherwise would have been the case. The Customs are obviously going to return practically nothing, because nobody in the Colony has any money. In other words, the Colony is faced with the position that it has barely enough revenue to pay interest on its debt, let alone find money for the administration of the Colony.
On top of that distress comes a discovery which may produce a great deal of revenue, and to my mind, and I imagine to the minds of the majority of Members of this House, it would be the most gross breach of trust to neglect the opportunity of collecting revenue in this way. It may be that that 5 per cent. royalty is too low, but if it is 5 per cent. on the gross output of gold, I do not think it would be too low. Five per cent. royalty on the gross output of gold is, I am sure all hon. Members will agree, a very heavy tax.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am speaking from memory, but I think that when a lease is granted special terms may be given. I am pretty certain that the provision in the Mining Ordinance is that it is 5 per cent, gross.

Mr. WISE: I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's information, and I think we can all agree that under these circumstances the amount of revenue which the Colony will derive if these gold mines are a successful venture will possibly be the one thing which can save this unfortunate Colony from complete financial collapse. The financial collapse of Kenya Colony is not going seriously to affect Great Britain, or at the moment the 17,000 European settlers out there, because they are already so badly hit by the general depression that any further blow is almost likely to be unnoticed. The people who are going to suffer in any financial collapse are the 3,000,000 natives. In the last 20 years we have been carefully and deliberately educating them out of their capacity to satisfy themselves on their own land, and we have created in them the desire for the products of civilisation, which have now become necessities to them. Before the
arrival of the British a blanket was unheard of. When we had been there a few years, it was a luxury worn only by head men, but it is now a necessity to almost every adult male there; and unless employment is maintained and they can get some form of money, we shall be depriving them, not only of odd luxuries, but of what are now their real necessities of life. For this reason, even if this meant the complete expropriation of land from the reserve, I still think it would be in the interests of the natives that that expropriation should be carried out; but it does not mean that, and in spite of everything which the Native Land Trust Ordinance of 1930 said—in some ways it was a good Ordinance, and in some it reflected the cloudy mind of Lord Pass-field—we should still exploit these gold-fields.
We have been endeavouring for many years to teach the natives of Kenya Colony to work. In their reserves their work is largely gone. The work of the man, before the days of the British administration, was that of protecting his herds. The herding was always done by the younger men, who carried their spears, and the other work of the man was the administration of the tribe. When he was young enough be was a soldier, and as he got older he became a statesman. When the raiding of cattle and the general looting of sheep and goats was drastically put a stop to by the intervention of outside authority, Othello's occupation was largely gone, and in the reserve to-day the young man, if he does not go out to work or if he does not go to school, is extraordinarily bored, and he is in many ways a very difficult problem to handle. He is apt to revert to his ancestral habits and to try to blood his spear.
We have started instructing these people in the art of manual labour. Whether that is good or not I cannot discuss, but we have done it. Owing to the separation of the Colony into reserves and settled areas, we have always had difficulty in shifting gangs of workmen out from the reserves to work on coffee or sisal plantations. No district officer enjoys large gangs of people passing through whom he has to have medically examined and whose thumb prints have to be collected on contract forms, most of whom he receives back three months later
having left their employment without leave. Now an opportunity is arising in which the natives can get work in their own reserve and next door to their own territory. I cannot believe that the general opinion among the North Kavirondo is in any way against the exploitation of this gold. I am certain that the local natives on the Njoma will, if it is put to them, approve of the exploitation, and if it can be left to the local native council I cannot anticipate any trouble at all provided that the reverend Archdeacon of Kavirondo will confine his efforts to writing to the "Manchester Guardian" and not to propaganda among the native—

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that the Archdeacon is a curse to East Africa?

Mr. WISE: I would not suggest that he is a curse, but merely a pest.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: If the hon. Member knows the Archdeacon as well as I do, he will know that he is the only man in East Africa who speaks the white man's voice in favour of the natives.

Mr. WISE: I must repudiate that because every officer of the administration does the same thing. I feel that this gold must be worked, that it is for the good of the Africans that it should be worked; I also feel that the Government is entirely fulfilling its trusteeship for the interests of the native population.

6.48 p.m.

Mr. GEOFFREY PETO: We have heard a most interesting speech from the hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Wise), and I am glad to have been able to learn from him a good deal of the country which I myself have visited. We have had from the Secretary of State the most clear and comprehensive answer, and I cannot believe that anybody can fairly misrepresent the case now that that answer has been made. I am sorry, therefore, to have heard the view taken by the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) even after the Minister's speech. Ex-Ministers of this Government ought to feel their responsibility, especially if they insist on sitting by the side of the Government. Whether they go on sitting beside us because they hope to attack us more securely from that position, or because they still hope to support us, or because it pleases their constituents for them to have a foot in
each camp, I do not know, but it is a great pity that an hon. Member who has held the high office of Home Secretary and particularly an hon. Member who has been the Under-Secretary for the Colonies, should take the opportunity of suggesting and going on to suggest after the Secretary of State's explanation that the Government are in some way taking an unfair advantage of the natives in favour of the white man. That is most dangerous propaganda.

Sir H. SAMUEL: Neither I nor any of my hon. Friends have said anything of the sort.

Mr. PETO: But they implied it. The late Under-Secretary said that the Government were destroying the confidence of natives throughout the country.

Sir R. HAMILTON: I said that they would destroy the confidence of the natives if they pursued their present policy.

Mr. PETO: That is the sort of insinuation to which I object, and exactly the sort of insinuation that will mislead the natives in Kenya. We know perfectly well that it was not because of the natives of Kakamega that the Under-Secretary resigned from the Government, although the natives might be under that delusion. He resigned because his chief pointed out to him that his cod-liver oil would cost him more and that he had better go while the going was good. Ex-Ministers should remember the effect of their words on the black races for whom we are responsible. It was not Lord Lugard who first raised this question of the Mining Ordinance, as the right hon. Member for Darwen said. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton) first raised the question on 20th December. That was the beginning of the whole correspondence. What does it amount to? Can the hon. Gentleman put forward a constructive idea and tell us what we ought to have done? Every time a mining lease is granted he wishes the Government to buy a bit of land from some adjoining owner and put it into the Reserve. It would mean endless additions of little bits to the Reserve. Can the House imagine a more unbusinesslike proposal? Is that what our ex-Ministers have to offer us? What constructive proposals have we got? The hon. Member knows the difficulties for
he was in office for a year, and answered a question to the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) on 18th February last. He was asked:
Can we have an assurance that, if any land is taken from the natives, land of equal value elsewhere and as convenient for the tribe will be found? 
To this the hon. Member replied:
That point will be borne in mind."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th February, 1932; col. 1826, Vol. 261.]
That was when the hon. Gentleman was in office and knew the difficulties. I want to ask the Liberals who are sitting next to us and opposing us, and to the real Opposition opposite who oppose this Mining Ordinance, what they wish the white man to do. First of all, successive Governments invite the white man as a settler in Kenya, and then certain Members of the House and many people outside imply that he is an intruder and an oppressor and has no right there at all. They have gone there with their families and their money to settle and have done an enormous amount for civilisation and progress in that country. What do hon. Members want them to do? They pass a Mining Ordinance, and prospectors go out and find gold. The Socialist Opposition say: "That is all right, but you must not mine; that would be very wrong. Now you have found the gold, the Government will do the mining." The Liberals would let the private individual do the mining, but on the terms that the Government would have to buy a bit of land 30 or 40 miles away and put it in the native Reserve. Is it not time that we treated the white man fairly in that country?
I was glad to hear the sympathetic and appreciative speech of the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under Lyme. He is a strong individualist, and I wonder that he does not come over to this side. He made a sympathetic speech, understanding the difficulties and not attempting to misrepresent the position. I welcomed that spirit, and I wish that we could all, whatever our party points of view, realise that it is wrong for people in authority to make attacks on the Government, and insinuations, which are worse than attacks, that we are not treating the black man fairly. Everybody knows that the black man is being looked
after in East Africa to-day as he has never been looked after in any part of the world, and it is our proud boast that it is so. I hope that after this very clear and lucid Debate and the speeches from the Colonial Secretary and from the benches opposite, we shall have heard the end of these attacks and reflections and insinuations against the white man in Kenya and East Africa generally, and that we shall do our best to encourage everybody to develop the gold mining industry for the good of the country.

6.55 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I do not propose to follow the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken in all the observations that he has made, but it seems to me worth while making one observation on the general tenour of his speech. In common with many other Members who have spoken in support of the Government's policy, he seems to indicate a sort of resentment against the fact that we are critising or even discussing Government policy in Kenya. Hon. Gentlemen must make up their minds which way they are going to have it. If they insist on being strong Imperialists and regard this House as responsible for the well-being of people in various parts of the Empire, they must not complain if we in the exercise of our right as Members of the House call attention from time to time to aspects of Government policy. As far as I have been able to observe, no one who has spoken in this Debate deserves to be subject to severe censure, because we are all agreed upon wishing to do what is best in the interests of the people in this area.
The subject under discussion was introduced in an excellent speech. I will not make any reference to the somewhat caustic way in which the hon. Member who moved the Motion compared us to certain insects, except to say that there are various types of insects—some of which bite and some of which crawl. The Government, no doubt, are very grateful to him; perhaps they have given him some assistance in devising the form of this Motion. It looks singularly like a vote of confidence in the Government drafted by one of its supporters. I have no doubt that the Colonial Secretary would not be unwilling to accept paternity. This subject has attracted a
good deal of attention, and as the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) rightly says, it has received attention from people who are leaders in various walks of life who have an interest in these matters for one reason or another. Take for instance Lord Lugard. He has had a lot of experience in Africa as an administrator. Then there is the Archbishop of Canterbury, who, after all, has an interest in this matter as being responsible for widespread missionary efforts in that country, and he is entitled to regard this matter from his own point of view.
I gather that in another place this afternoon the Government has received a far more vigorous condemnation of their policy than they have had even in this House. I observe in the speech of the Colonial Secretary and in the speeches of others an attempt to minimise the importance of this problem. First of all, they have tried to make out that the area involved is not very great. Let me take a passage from a letter from Sir Albert Kitson in the "Times" on 17th January, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. Sir Albert says:
Perhaps it may be advisable to say clearly what the requirements for the development of the goldfields really are. The field comprises a strip of country extending, roughly, west to east some 30 miles and north to south some 14 miles, with an area of 420 square miles, or 286,000 acres.
Surely we cannot argue that the area is not a very substantial area.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I did not suggest that it was not a large area. What I said was that we should consider how much surface we may take from the natives. I said that the estimate of the Governor was two square miles.

Mr. JONES: I have no desire to misrepresent the right hon. Gentleman; I am merely pointing out what might be involved in the whole question on the evidence of Sir Albert Kitson himself. Take another observation which is significant. Sir Albert Kitson made a speech recently at a dinner and, if hon. Gentlemen will look at a publication called "East Africa" of 19th July, they will find that he made repeated assertions that this goldfield is one which offers very substantial prospects of development. Let me make just one quotation.
He says:
On the evidence so far adduced geologists can say that there is every promise of much bigger reefs being discovered.
I leave out a part of the speech, and Sir Albert Kitson continues:
I feel that we have seen nothing like the best of the field yet but it all depends, of course, on the results of deep sinking.
Not only is that the case, but there is this further point which the House must bear in mind. It is not merely gold that is involved in this matter. Sir Albert Kitson makes it very clear that diamonds too may be involved. I do not say that the diamond mining will be of any substantial proportions, but no one knows. All I am saying is that it is no use arguing as though this problem were meagre and insignificant, and not worth all this stir and trouble. There is abundant evidence that we are in the presence of a development which may be of very vast significance, not only to the economic future of this area but to its political development as well. May I make this quotation from the "Times" leading article, and I ask the House to follow it:
Lord Lugard's letter gives expression to a widespread uneasiness not confined to the familiar school of critics that are always so ready to blame officials. … A cash payment can never, in any real sense, compensate a tribe.… The principle at stake is far reaching and calls for most careful examination.
We are entitled to invite the House, in all good faith to examine this matter with us with a view to discussing whether in point of fact the action of the Government, hitherto, has been in strict accord with what we have always understood to be the policy of this country. The hon. Gentleman who spoke a minute ago seemed to desire to invite us to say what we should do with respect to the white man and his rights. I am sure that there is no one among my hon. Friends who takes the slightest exception to the white man being given his proper opportunity in these areas. The rights of the white settler have for years now been very formally laid down by previous Colonial Secretaries. The Duke of Devonshire, in 1923, laid down quite clearly what were these rights, and they broadly were this—the paramountcy of the native interest. He was succeeded later by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery),
who was in accord with that policy. He was followed by the present Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs and his policy was of a like character. Lord Passfield became Colonial Secretary and followed the same course of procedure. Four successive Colonial Secretaries have laid it down quite clearly that the paramount interest in these areas is safeguarding the rights of the natives and the question at issue really is whether in this new departure we have, in fact, put in jeopardy these paramount rights. The pronouncements to which I have referred have, quite properly, come to be regarded by the natives as definite pledges on the part of this Government vis-a-vis the natives of these areas.
Before coming to my proposition that there has been a departure, I would recall to the House a passage from Lord Pass-field's "Memorandum on Native Policy in East Africa" (Cmd. 3573, 1930). He used these words:
Any derogation from this solemn pledge would, in the view of H.M. Government, be not only a flagrant breach of trust, but also, in view of its inevitable effect upon the natives a serious calamity from which the whole Colony could not fail to suffer.
He further says:
While parts of the native reserves may have to be withdrawn for new purposes of public utility, no expropriation of any native, or natives, should ever be permitted for the mere private or personal profit, or other advantage of any individual whether European, Indian, African, or other race.
In other words, the main test was the well-being of the community at large of the area of tenure. Before there was to be any sort of expropriation Lord Passfield laid it down, categorically, that there was to be a formal inquiry into the amount of the compensation by some competent tribunal. May I ask whether there has been any formal inquiry by any competent tribunal, or does he imply that the inquiry is one which is now being personally undertaken by the Morris Carter Commission?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Certainly. If he will carry his researches to a more recent date, and to the recommendations of the Joint Select Committee of both Houses, he will see that the Morris Carter Commission are to inquire into the subject of the whole question of reserves, and they are the tribunal. I think it is generally agreed that I have interpreted
rightly what the Joint Select Committee intended.

Mr. JONES: Do I understand that the Morris Carter Commission is entitled to inquire into this particular point— whether before any individual native is expropriated the Morris Carter Commission is the appropriate tribunal for discussing whether he should be expropriated?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, certainly not. The appropriate tribunal is the tribunal set up by the Lands Trust Ordinance which lays down the whole procedure. That was laid down in the Lands Trust Ordinance. The body to inquire into the sufficiency of the reserves, and what land should be added and where, is the Morris Carter Commission.

Mr. JONES: May I ask this other question? Has any tribunal discussed at all the expropriation of any individual native?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No single native has in fact been expropriated. When a lease is granted on an application which would involve expropriation temporarily from that part, then the whole machinery has to be gone through with the local land board and the central board.

Mr. JONES: I gather from what the right hon. Gentleman says that it is just possible that, in the future, circumstances may arise whereby individual natives may have to be expropriated, if the tribunal agrees that it is proper to do so. May I direct attention to what happened in the Joint Committee on Closer Union? It is on page 644 of their report and the questions are Nos. 6546–49. Lord Francis Scott was answering questions by Lord Cranworth:
(Q.) Have portions of the native reserves been taken away during those 10 years in any way from the natives?
(A.) None that I know of.
(Q.) They have not been exchanged or anything? They have just as much land as they had then—have they or have they not?
(A.) I think they have just as much now as they had then, only they have it definitely demarcated now, which they had not 10 years ago.
(Q.) It is now definitely demarcated, and I take it that no land can be taken away
from the natives now, can it? Can it be taken away for public purposes?
(A.) Under the Native Land Trust Act, which came into force last year, there are certain provisions under which it can be taken, but they are very carefully safeguarded.
(Q.) Public purposes, I suppose?
(A.) Yes, public purposes. I think, if I remember rightly, they have to give an equal area back elsewhere.
Then Lord Passfield said:
Yes, an equivalent area must be added. It may be a little difficult of application, but that is the law.
Therefore, the point which the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) was making is a quite sound one. There is no necessity for any legislation upon the point at all. The witness declared that it is now the law, and therefore any departure from this practice is a violation of the law. Let me now turn to another aspect of this matter. The right hon. Gentleman in his speech seemed to aver that the Chief Native Commissioner was quite satisfied that there was no sort of feeling among the natives on this matter.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I never suggested that. I think the Chief Native Commissioner was admirably frank. He said the natives were naturally anxious when they found people sticking pegs all over the area. Of course they are; but he said the way we are dealing with it is the most practicable and the wisest way of treating it.

Mr. JONES: Let me amend my statement. I will not drag in the Chief Commissioner at all. But there are hon. Members in this House who seem to have an impression that there is no need to feel any sort of anxiety. Let me quote from a speech of the Chief Native Commissioner on this point. He agreed that the Bill would not be popular with the natives, for it involved a conception of the use of land foreign to native ideas, and no amount of compensation would induce them to agree to the leasing of land voluntarily. He added:
I am afraid we shall have to hurt their feelings, wound their susceptibilities and in some cases violate their most cherished and sacred traditions by moving natives from the piece of land on which they have the right to live and setting them up on another piece, the holders of which would have the right to eject them. We have to face these difficulties.
Hon. Members must not assume that the Government, in following the policy they are now adopting, will have no sort of opposition from the natives. They will clearly violate feelings and susceptibilities held tenaciously by the natives in that area.
Now I come to another question. Nobody on this side of the House, nor, as far as I can see, on the Liberal benches, takes any objection to the fact that gold is to be prospected for. If there is mineral wealth in the area, clearly it ought to be developed. That is an elementary proposition, and it seems to me to be common sense. But the right hon. Gentleman opposite controverted my suggestion this afternoon that to do it through the medium of Governmental activity would be a good thing. I am an unrepentant Socialist; the right hon. Gentleman is a semi-Socialist. For my part, I see no insuperable difficulties in the Government undertaking the control of the gold deposits of this area. Assuming, however, that proposition is put out of court, what is the next best thing? I suggested an alternative this afternoon, that there should be set up a sort of public-private company, in which the Government would hold the major portion of the shares. I was not proposing anything tremendously revolutionary. After all, gold is essential in this modern world. If there were more of it in our own country, perhaps many of us would be happier than we are. Our own Government own a certain number of shares in the Anglo-Persian Oil Company. They acquired them because oil was deemed to be essential for the well-being of the nation. In a similar way why should it not be equally a good thing for the nation to control a large number of shares in a public-private concern operating the gold deposits of this area? There is a further alternative—to leave things entirely to individual and private enterprise; but in that case I would beg the Government not to leave the business of prospecting to small individuals, with no resources whatever, who would do it in a higgledy-piggledy kind of way, bringing the whole country into a state of comparative chaos. If we must have private enterprise I infinitely prefer to have a Very strong private company—of course paying a proper sum to the Government for the right of operating—so that the thing could be done in an orderly and
methodical way. They would not only develop it in a modern way, but could give some reasonable guarantee that they would be able to pay the wages of those whom they employ.
There is a third reason I would like to put forward. My hon. Friend the Member for Rothwell (Mr. Lunn) cited the cases, to which Sir Albert Kitson referred, of two ladies who prospected for gold securing within three weeks some £17,500 worth out of which the Government secured £850. If this area were to remain an agricultural area it could not face up to the costs of modern government, but this industrialisation, if it comes, will perhaps tap new resources for this community, and I should very much hope that the proceeds of such industrial development would be used to safeguard more amply the interests of the natives. We are spending now upon native education in that area something like £130,000 a year. We all hope that those native people will develop in culture and in every other sense, and one of the great instruments of culture and development is education. Therefore, I trust the, Government, if they allow this development to take place through the medium of some private company, will secure such a return from the company as will enable them adequately to look after the health, the sanitation and the educational and other social needs of the community.
In view of the fact that we have had so short a discussion I should be very glad if the hon. Member opposite could see his way not to press this Motion to a Division. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Apparently my appeal falls on deaf ears. If the Government persist, or bring pressure to bear upon the hon. Member to press his Motion, let me make this quite clear: I speak on behalf of my hon. Friends on this side when I say that we are not going to allow ourselves to be committed to anything in this Motion which departs in any way from the spirit of the public declarations of previous years. We still regard ourselves as bound by the declarations made by Colonial Secretaries from that of the Duke of Devonshire in 1923 to that of Lord Passfield in 1930. Any departure from them we shall feel free to repudiate at any time. I hope very much, in view of
the short discussion, the hon. Member will not press the matter to a Division.

7.26 p.m.

Mr. DENMAN: Having listened to almost every word of this Debate I have come to the very clear conclusion that it would be a mistake to have a Division on the Motion. The matter is far too important to be disposed of in so short a time, and, moreover, I think the Government case is far too good to be expressed merely in terms of votes brought in from outside. I want the strength of the Government case to rest not upon our votes but upon the admirable speech of the Colonial Secretary. I want that to be read, and not the figures to be considered. If there is a vote it will inevitably be taken as dividing us into pro-settlers and anti-settlers or pro-natives and anti-natives, which would have a very bad effect, whereas if people read the Debate they will see for themselves how sympathetically the Government are, in fact, dealing with the matter. Further, apart from the party back-chat we have had from time to time, surely everyone must be impressed by the fundamental agreement among the great mass of Members upon all the important issues. We all want some very big things. We want to be clear that the native confidence in British rule is maintained; we all want

the gold to be freely worked; and we desire that some practicable method should be devised of providing land for land if this mining is to be carried out over any long period. The only point in the Colonial Secretary's admirable speech on which I was not quite clear was as to what extent he gave a pledge to that effect, but I think his whole attitude clearly implied that some thing of that kind would be devised if this mining business turned out to be anything in the nature of a permanent industry in the locality. That being so— and surely we are agreed on these things —it is ridiculous for us to divide. What we have before us at the moment is the Amendment of the Opposition. The Opposition have declared themselves more than once to be Socialists. The hon. Member said he was an unrepentant Socialist, but I have never heard any doctrine of Socialism so odd as the one put forward in the Amendment.

Mr. DONNER: rose in his place, and claimed to move "That the Question be now put."

Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out, stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes 208; Noes 57.

Division No. 34.]
AYES.
[7.30 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Fremantle, Sir Francis


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Clarke, Frank
Ganzoni, Sir John


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Colonel Charles
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Gledhill, Gilbert


Albery, Irving James
Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Glossop, C. W. H.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (L'pool, W.)
Conant, R. J. E.
Gluckstein, Louis Halle


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Cook, Thomas A.
Goldie, Noel B.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Cooke, Douglas
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Cooper, A. Duff
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)


Aske, Sir Robert William
Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Grimston, R. V.


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Cranborne, Viscount
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Guy, J. C. Morrison


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Hales, Harold K.


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Crossley, A. C.
Hammersley, Samuel S.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Beaumont, Hn. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Harbord, Arthur


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hartland, George A.


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Davison, Sir William Henry
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Bird, Sir Robert B. (Wolverh'pton W.)
Dickie, John P.
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)


Blindell, James
Drewe, Cedric
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.


Borodale, Viscount
Duckworth, George A. V
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller


Bracken, Brendan
Duggan, Hubert John
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)


Broadbent, Colonel John
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Hopkinson, Austin


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Eastwood, John Francis
Horsbrugh, Florence


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Howard, Tom Forrest


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.


Burnett, John George
Elmley, Viscount
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Hume, Sir George Hopwood


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)


Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Fox, Sir Gifford
Hurd, Sir Percy


Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)
Mulrhead, Major A. J.
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Jamieson, Douglas
Nall, Sir Joseph
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Nall-Cain, Hon. Ronald
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Newton, Sir Douglas George C.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Kirkpatrick, William M.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Somervell, Donald Bradley


Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.
North, Captain Edward T.
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Ormiston, Thomas
Soper, Richard


Leech, Dr. J. W.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G.A.
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Lewis, Oswald
Patrick, Colin M.
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Liddall, Walter S.
Pearson, William G.
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster. Fylde)


Lindsay, Noel Ker
Peat, Charles U.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe.
Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Stevenson, James


Llewellin, Major John J.
Petherick, M.
Strauss, Edward A.


Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)
Summersby, Charles H.


Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Mabane, William
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Thompson, Luke


MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Thorp, Linton Theodore


McCorquodale, M. S.
Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Rankin, Robert
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


McKie, John Hamilton
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Turton, Robert Hugh


McLean, Major Sir Alan
Remer, John R.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Robinson, John Roland
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Magnay, Thomas
Ross, Ronald D.
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Maitland, Adam
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Ward. Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Ruggies-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Runge, Norah Cecil
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour


Martin, Thomas B.
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Merriman. Sir F. Boyd
Savery, Samuel Servington
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Scone, Lord
Wise, Alfred R.


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Seliey, Harry R.
Womersley, Walter James


Moreing, Adrian C.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H,
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark. Bothwell)



Moss, Captain H. J.
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. Donner and Colonel Ropner.


NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot


Banfield, John William
Groves, Thomas E.
Maxton, James


Bernays, Robert
Grundy, Thomas W.
Milner, Major James


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Parkinson, John Allen


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Price, Gabriel


Buchanan, George
Hicks, Ernest George
Rathbone, Eleanor


Cape, Thomas
Hirst, George Henry
Rea, Walter Russell


Cowan, D. M.
Janner, Barnett
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwsn)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jenkins, Sir William
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)


Curry, A. C.
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Thorne, William James


Daggar, George
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Edwards, Charles
Kirkwood, David
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Lawson, John James
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Lunn, William
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
McEntee, Valentine L.



Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
McKeag, William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Mr. John and Mr. G. Macdonald.


Resolution agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Colonial Administration, while acting as trustees of the Native races, must at the same time have regard to the rights and maintain the responsibilities of all races,
and that in this connection this House considers that the action taken by the Government of Kenya in regard to the development of the goldfields in the Kavirondo area and for safeguarding the interests of the Native population is both equitable and expedient, and that this House approves such action.

CARLTON HOUSE TERRACE.

Captain CROOKSHANK: I beg to move,
That, in view of the widely-expressed dissatisfaction over the recent decisions of the Commissioners of Crown Lands with regard to No. 4, Carlton Gardens, and the uneasiness still felt as to the future of Carlton House Terrace, Carlton Gardens, and other Crown lands in London, this House urges the Government to take immediate steps to reorganise the administration of Crown lands and in particular to secure that in any future decision educated and responsible opinion shall be fully taken into consideration.
I am afraid that this evening I am breaking a resolution which I thought fit to make for myself that during the next few months the voice of the hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) should be heard rather less in this assembly than in the past. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] Because I coupled with it at the same time the hope that the same self-denying ordinance would be adopted by all those hon. Members whose names are Williams. The hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) having spoken yesterday, I feel that I am pardoned, particularly as it is not by my will and choice that I am speaking to-day but is entirely due to the chance of the ballot. If there is any advantage in these Wednesday Motions, it is that we should have the opportunity of discussing something which is topical. I am certain that the Debate on Kenya which has preceded this one, and this discussion, if they have any advantage, have the advantage that they are dealing with questions which have arisen rather acutely during the last month or so.
One imagines hon. Members raising in these Debates subjects of direct interest to their constituents, and I should perhaps be talking to-night about unemployment, beer, totalisators or agriculture, but I deem it of some advantage that those who are perhaps not directly concerned with the government and administration of London should, when occasion arises, lift their voices in this House and criticise something that has occurred in what is, after all, the finest city in the world. I must say that I am very sorry, and that I apologise to the Minister of Agriculture that I should have had to drag him here to-night, when his mind should more appropriately be occupied with questions of milk and potatoes and
those great Acts which we know he is about to introduce for the benefit of our great industry of agriculture.
It is an unfortunate fact that he is technically responsible for what is done by the Commissioners of Crown Lands; in fact he is a Commissioner. A great deal of the trouble which has arisen during the last few weeks, and which has been much ventilated in the Press, has been due to this divided authority and to the fact that the Minister of Agriculture is nominally, and only just nominally, the spokesman for what is done by the Crown Lands Commissioners, who are what one might well describe as the absolute essence of bureaucracy. It is indeed admitted from many points of view that this is the case to-day. For those who hold non-Socialist opinions, this position is merely one further proof of what we have held so long, namely, that the State is not only a thoroughly bad landlord but is the worst authority to undertake those activities in life which in the past have been carried out by private enterprise. When one considers that the enormous estates of the Commissioners of Crown Lands are administered by a civil servant, we see some of the difficulties in which this nation would be involved if the Socialists had their way.
The first part of this Resolution is really a peg, and a very scandalous peg, on which to hang the few remarks with which I will trouble the House. The text is Carlton House Terrace, No. 4, Carlton Gardens; I am not proposing to go into the details of the whole history of the case and of the disputes which have arisen, because the hon. Member for Don-caster (Mr. Molson) who should be here and apparently is not, had intended, as the Seconder of the Motion, and I hope still intends, to deal with that. I would only just point out one or two salient facts in regard to the controversy around Carlton Gardens.
First of all, as far back as the 4th July, the question was raised in this House as to what was going to happen to that particular site. It was raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland), and the Minister then said that, although no agreement had been reached, the plans would be submitted to the Fine Art Commission and so on. In fact, any incipient opposition was lulled by the very sooth-
ing words of the present Home Secretary, and nothing more was thought about it at that time. We find now that it was at the end of the month that the plans were submitted to the Fine Art Commission. The whole story of the half-truths and the misunderstandings between the Department, the architect, the firm of painters who are most concerned, and the Fine Art Commission, will no doubt be detailed during the Debate, but there is one salient date on which I should like the House to focus its attention, and that is the 13th July.
On that date the Minister of Agriculture went away to Ottawa with that very fine delegation which was to get such very great results, and no doubt he forgot all about Carlton Gardens. I do not blame him for that; anyone would in his position. After all, he had been dealing during the Session with one of the most important agricultural Measures ever placed on the Statute Book, the Wheat Bill. He must have had hours and hours of Committee work in connection with the Ottawa Conference, in consultation with agriculturists in this country and with his own colleagues, as to what the policy of the Government was to be, and it is, after all, not humanly possible for the Minister to do everything. This matter was certainly so much outside the ordinary scope of his labours that, so far as I can see the case, he stands absolutely forgiven. With these great problems to be dealt with, he, who was only a nominal Commissioner, can very well be excused in this House. But that does not excuse the Commissioners qua Commissioners, because all the while, after this House had been told that everything would be discussed and planned and arranged and so on, the demolition of the existing house was going on, and, as the months went by, the foundations and the steel superstructure which we now see were rising—and so was the tide of questions in this House.
Within the last fortnight, however, we have heard from the Minister himself that the whole question was really a matter, so far as the contractors are concerned, of something like £60,000; and, when pressed, he said that there was no particular reason to suppose that the contractors would have been willing voluntarily to cancel their contract, and, therefore, by and large, the plans which
had been adopted must go on. I do not think I am misquoting anything of the substance of what the Minister said in his recent published statement. To that, so far as Carlton House Terrace and Carlton Gardens are concerned, a great many of us would take exception. Many people would say that there were adequate grounds on which the Government could have gone, and, it having been seen that they had made a mistake —for the Minister knows just as well as I do that a mistake was made by someone—perhaps some arrangement could have been come to.
The case, apparently, rested at that time on a general idea that there were several of these houses in Carlton House Terrace and Carlton Gardens falling vacant, and that there was difficulty in renewing leases, and the new arrangement with this particular firm—we have it on the authority of the spokesman of the Government in the other House— means an increase of something like £350 per annum on the present lease as compared with what was being received before. For that paltry sum of £350 a year, all this commotion and disturbance has been caused. It is really rather a pity. We have on the one side an expression of the opinion of practically every reasonable and well-educated person, while, on the other hand, we have a sort of attitude of "Blomfield contra mundum." It is not to be supposed that those of us who have objected to what has been going on in Carlton House Terrace are exactly aesthetes in the normal sense of the word. I should say that I myself, and the hon. Member for Doncaster, who is going to second this Motion, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth, would never pass an aesthetes in any company. But the damage is being done.
That is all I want to say about Carlton House Terrace. I think it is a most discreditable story in connection with the Crown Lands Commissioners, and, if it could be done now, I would urge the Government, even at this very late hour, to try to do something to get the firm of painters who are going to occupy No. 4 to come to some accommodation with the Commissioners. I wish it could be done, and I do not think it is impossible even now. But I want to argue the case on much larger grounds than that. It may possibly be that this grave mistake will
result in good in the long run, because at least it may wake up a Government— I do not say this Government, because I do not suppose that this Government, until the last few weeks, has had the matter under its consideration at all—to the scandalous condition of affairs in regard to the Crown Lands Commissioners; and, if it does that, perhaps it will have been worth that £350 per annum, though I still doubt it.
The idea, apparently, in this case was that because at the moment four, or five, or six—or whatever the number may be— houses in that particular part of London were unoccupied, it would be advisable to change them into offices or flats, because it would be easier to get tenants. That is exactly where I would join issue with these people. Is there any reason to suppose that, when prosperity returns to our country, there will be more demand for flats and offices than for large houses? It is just as reasonable to say that the resultant prosperity of our nation will induce some people—possibly even members of a Labour Administration—to want to go and live in a big house in Carlton House Terrace. I see that an hon. Gentleman opposite does not agree, but he is going to get some rich recruits, I understand, before long. The experience of the Crown Lands Commissioners is not to be found only in Carlton House Terrace. It is to be found in their Regent Street properties. What do we find there? There they thought it would be a good idea to extend their office accommodation, and they perpetrated one of the worst blots upon London in rebuilding Regent Street.
If I were to read the January "Architect's Journal," I should find an article on this subject. As I only drew up this Motion last night, I admit that I have not had time personally to investigate it, but I take it that it is a reputable paper, and it states that there are in the Crown Lands Commissioners' houses in Regent Street to-day 20 vacant offices, 30 completely vacant floors of offices, and nine shops, three of which are whole buildings. With that already the case on their own property, why on earth do they want to talk about changing a lot of residential property into still further offices, to be still further unoccupied? The Regent Street property is let at rentals which I understand it is practically impossible to pay to-day. Again, in the "Times"
of the 26th July last year there will be found a statement made by the Town Clerk of Westminster. He says that these businesses in Regent Street were being assessed on floor areas by the assessment committees, and not on actual rents, because the latter were so high that it was impossible to do it on that basis. That is why I again stress the fact that it is absolutely preposterous on the part of the Crown Lands Commissioners to develop office property in what is now a residential area.
One has only to read the "Times" of this morning to find an account of a meeting of the Regent Street Association last night on this particular question. They have been asking for a reduction in their rents, and it appears that they were very sympathetically received in August by the Permanent Commissioner of Crown Lands. He said that he was prepared to make recommendations to the Treasury for temporary concessions, and so they asked to be received by the Treasury, but the Treasury refused. I note also that, when the Minister of Agriculture received the deputation on the 26th January, the Treasury were again cited as sole arbiters in the matter of rents. As the association goes on to say in its report, it seems inconsistent with the position and responsibilities of the Permanent Commissioner, who is in effect an estate manager, that his action should be controlled by a body whose concern is not estate management, but revenue. Therefore, there is not only the bureaucratic control of the Permanent Commissioner, but behind him there is the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, apparently—I stand to be corrected—has a considerable voice in the fixing of these rentals. Of all the ridiculous arrangements that anyone could devise for dealing with this kind of property, these are probably the most absurd.
May I remind the House of what is dealt with by the Crown Lands Commissioners? They are not dealing with a bankrupt estate; their business is not to try to squeeze out the last penny from wherever they can get it. Their history is a very interesting one. If you go back into it, you find the Crown surrendering its lands, and accepting the Civil List, originally under the Office of Works, with the First Commissioner in charge; then, owing to the scandals in the Department,
it was transferred to the Ministry of Agriculture; and now, in view of the scandals under the present administration, I hope it will be transferred back to the First Commissioner of Works. They are dealing with 251,000 acres of land, a great deal of it agricultural, and anyone who is sufficiently interested to read the report of the Commissioners of Crown Lands for last year will find that, for the financial year ending on the 31st March, their gross income revenue was £1,777,000, while their gross expenditure was only £534,000, and that they paid into the Treasury, into the national accounts, that year, £1,250,000, which, in spite of their having this property without tenants, was only some £30,000 less than they paid into the Exchequer in 1931.
I am stressing these figures because, apparently, the argument as regards Carlton Gardens has been that they could not leave the property untenanted any longer, as they were losing so much. Last year, however, they only paid into the Exchequer £30,000 less than the previous year. The accounts show, also, that last year they had to spend £66,000 for maintenance expenses in connection with farms in hand. In view of the state of agriculture as it was at that time, it is not very remarkable that they handed to the Exchequer a little less than the previous year, but it was only such a little less that I really cannot believe that they need have made this great revolutionary attack on the whole of the Carlton estate, Carlton Gardens and Carlton House Terrace, just because of the extra £350 that it might bring in, when the figures dealt with are so large.
What is the good of this House stressing, in Debate and in legislation, the whole question of town planning—last Session Parliament passed a great Bill on that question—when here is a Government Department, a Department of the State, which surely ought to be the model employer, absolutely disregarding any of the principles of town planning and, indeed, going out of its way to encroach on one of the few parts of London which were really adequately planned at the time when they were built? That is not the first time that there have been grievances which hon. Members of this House could feel with regard to the Crown Lands Commissioners. I do not know whether everybody here would say that
the Commissioners were perfect agricultural landlords, either. I have a very distinct recollection that, at the time Mr. Guinness—now Lord Moyne—was Minister of Agriculture, towards the end of 1928 and at the beginning of 1929, rents of agricultural estates in Lincolnshire and the south-eastern counties were raised very considerably; the unjustifiable raising of these rents caused more trouble than it is possible to imagine to candidates in that by-election, and the excuses put about by the Commissioners for the raising of the rents of Crown lands would not hold water at all. Some of us have been storing up grievances against the Commissioners of Crown Lands for a long time, and I am very pleased to have had the opportunity of bringing something against them to-day.
When all is said and done, if you look at it by and large, here is a great estate being run on what is obviously a very bad system. So we ask the Government quite frankly in our Motion to take immediate steps to deal with it: to reorganise its administration which, at any rate in these three instances that I have quoted—the Carlton House Terrace property, the Regent Street property and even the agricultural property some years ago—has not been what it should have been considering that the State is dealing with these problems. If it decides in its wisdom or its folly that Carlton House Terrace is no good any more for private houses, then let it at least look round the world and see what other people have done in similar circumstances. Let the Permanent Commission or the Minister of Agriculture—I should be very glad if he would take the trip—go over to Paris; let them walk into the Place Vendôme; let them see that most wonderful square, the facade of which is as it always was, but behind it they will find two or three banks, innumerable shops, and two of the most famous hotels in the world. They certainly would not have chosen that sort of place for a hotel, but these have managed quite well. Let them go to the Place de la Concorde; they will see a great building being put up for American Government purposes. The condition was laid down by the French authorities— whether Paris itself or the Government was concerned I could not say—that no building could be put on that site unless it corresponded to the existing building
on the other side of the Square. These things are not difficult to do, but require the will to do the right thing, and many of us suspect that in the last few weeks that will has not been forthcoming.
We say that there is a case for the reorganisation of the administration, and if there is not we urge that some steps should be adopted to see that educated and responsible opinion is taken into consideration. By "educated" I mean something analogous to the Royal Fine Art Commission; I would make it mandatory that they should be consulted and that what they say should be published, so that we may choose between one opinion and the other. By "responsible" I mean that this House should have somehow some opportunity of expressing its views on the subject, and not have to receive its information in this present very clouded state. I hope the Government will find it possible to accept our Motion. It is very humble; it is put in very large words. The Minister will, I am sure, realise that had we felt like it, or felt it wise or desirable, we could have condemned the Government root and branch, and, what is more, we could have had a majority in this House on this subject. Certainly! Why, the first Memorial to the Prime Minister was signed by 80 Members of Parliament in the twinkling of an eye. I am not so sure but that most of the Members of the Government itself heartily endorse everything I have stated.
We make the case that the Carlton House Terrace business is a scandal; that the Commissioners of Crown Lands should be dealt with; that the administration be altered; that Parliament should have a say because, if for no other reason, the Commissioners have thought fit in their folly to tamper with what is, after all, the great processional way of the Empire. It would be quite easy for me or for any hon. Member of this House to wax sentimental about London—" The metropolis of our far-flung Empire "— where the Romans have left their traces, and the Normans, and every century right down to Wren, Adams, Rennie and Nash, whose work we are discussing to-day. There may be some Members of this House who do not think much of Carlton House Terrace, but still it is the relic of an age. It is part of a plan which Nash conceived and which has been half
destroyed by these same Crown Land Commissioners in Regent Street, but a little bit of it still remains. It is a terrace from which an intelligent observer or an interested admirer can see almost every wonderful sight that London has to give. During the last few years some great processions has passed there along the Mall; those excited crowds on Armistice day, those great Peace processions, all the captured guns; practically every great soldier and sailor we have had since it was built has had his funeral procession along there. The King comes from Buckingham Palace to our Palace at Westminster to open our Proceedings. If you ask any Englishman of our race scattered over the globe to think of all the great cities—Paris, Berlin, New York, Edinburgh—which have their great processional ways, he will say that the Mall beats them all. One of the reasons why the Mall is so impressive is because of this very terrace which Nash built over 100 years ago. If I put our case as low as that, I believe it would be a winning ease, but when you take into account all the other considerations which inevitably arise, it is overwhelming. I beg the Government to be good enough to accept our Motion.

8.8 p.m.

Mr. MOLSON: I beg to second the Motion.
The House has heard from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) a striking indictment of the general administration of the Crown lands. My task is the humbler one of following out the particular controversy which has led to this Motion being moved in this House. For the last six months or more there have been Members of this House who have been much concerned with what they understood was going to be done with a certain historic site, a site which was occupied by the house of two Prime Ministers. It was as far back as last spring that the first rumours reached the tenants of Carlton House Terrace that certain great changes were intended, and residents there addressed a letter to the Commissioners of Crown Lands. On 4th July, shortly before the Summer Recess, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) asked a question of the Minister of Agriculture with regard to the intentions of the
Crown Lands Commissioners. That question was asked with a special reason. It was that before this House rose, when for a long space of time it would be impossible to raise this matter again, he desired some assurance that no rash and unwarrantable change would be made in the character of that neighbourhood. He was reassured by a reply from the now Home Secretary that any new building to be erected on that site would be subject to the provisions of the London Building Act, and that the Commissioners of Crown Lands had further stipulated that the plan must be submitted to the Royal Fine Arts Commission.
Without making any charge of bad faith, I cannot say that that undertaking was carried out in the spirit, when one knows that only the plans for that house were submitted, and not the fact that the new building was to be of a nonresidential character, that it was to be 30 feet higher than No. 1, Carlton House Terrace, and 40 feet higher than the house which it replaced. This matter was submitted to the Royal Fine Art Commission, not by the Commissioners of Crown Lands, but apparently by Sir Reginald Blomfield. There has been, as this House is aware, a good deal of controversy between Sir Reginald Blomfield, the architect of this new erection, and Lord Crawford, the Chairman of the Royal Fine Art Commission. Looking at the first consideration, the House is entitled to know exactly in what capacity Sir Reginald Blomfield was charged with the responsibility of submitting these plans to the Royal Fine Art Commission. One would naturally have supposed, after the answer that was given by the right hon. Gentleman on 4th July, that the plans would have been submitted by the Commissioners of Crown Lands themselves and that the whole question of height as well as design would have been put before them in order that they should make their comments. The importance of this matter lies in the fact that there has been a great deal of confusion about whether the whole of Carlton House Terrace was to be rebuilt, or whether there was to be only a single building. When Sir Reginald Blomfield submitted his plans for the new building to be erected on the site of 4, Carlton Gardens, he apparently incorporated it in a plan for the rebuilding of Carlton House Terrace, and apparently the Royal Fine
Art Commission was given to understand that the Commissioners of Crown Lands had decided upon a policy of the entire reconstruction of Carlton House Terrace and that 4, Carlton Gardens, was merely the first instalment of a comprehensive plan.
It has never been the intention of us who have protested against this building at 4, Carlton Gardens to suggest that for all time Carlton House Terrace should be preserved as a monument to Regency architecture, however unsuitable it may become and however derelict it may be. At the present time there is a clear case for doing so on financial grounds; as a matter of fact there are only four houses in the whole of that Terrace and in the Gardens which are vacant at the present time. I suppose that any landlord in London who had as many houses as that and had only four out of them vacant at the time would regard himself as a very fortunate man. If, however, it is found necessary that the whole of the Carlton House Terrace site should be rebuilt, then most of us would not raise any objection to it. But there is a single plan submitted to the Royal Fine Art Commission upon which they are asked to pronounce. They are given to understand by the architect who makes this submission to them that the Commissioners of Crown Lands have decided upon an entire reconstruction of the whole site. It is some weeks afterwards that they learn, when at last they get into communication with the Permanent Commissioner of Crown Lands, that the Government, as a matter of fact, have no policy about the site at all and that it is still in doubt as to whether it will or will not be necessary to rebuild the whole of the site.
The Royal Fine Art Commission very naturally considered the whole of the design as put before them—with what authority I hope we shall be informed to-night—by Sir Reginald Blomfield, a large and ambitious scheme for the whole of the reconstruction of the site. They found that, assuming that reconstruction was going to take place, the building to be erected on 4, Carlton Gardens was not inappropriate. At once they took exception to the increase in height—an increase in height which will mean that the new Carlton House Terrace will be actually higher than Buckingham Palace itself. But as that had been referred
to, and as it was not within their terms of reference, the chairman of the Fine Art Commission very naturally wrote a personal letter on the 28th July expressing grave doubts as to what the effect upon the amenities of that part of London would be of increasing the height of those buildings.
On 30th July the Chairman wrote again. For some reason or other, he was not quite sure that in his first letter he had made it quite plain to the architect, Sir Reginald Blomfield—and I repeat it again—whose exact authority for explaining to the Fine Art Commission the policy of the Government is still obscure. He wrote again in order to express the wish and the desire that his letter, written on behalf of the Commission, should be brought to the notice of the permanent Commissioner for Crown Lands. The unfortunate thing is that on the 16th September the permanent Commissioner wrote to Lord Crawford to say that no rebuilding of the Terrace at present is contemplated, so that it now appears that Sir Reginald Blomfield, when he announced to the Fine Art Commission that it was the policy of the Commissioners of Crown Lands to rebuild the whole area, was going beyond what Be was authorised to do.
I asked a question of my right hon. and gallant Friend on 19th December, and he replied that:
The policy of the Commissioners of Crown Lands is, shortly, to review at an early date the position of Carlton House Terrace, having regard to the increasing difficulty of obtaining tenants for the dwelling-houses therein.
I accordingly put the supplementary question:
If it is the intention of the Government to review the whole position, how is it that Sir Reginald Blomfield is able to explain their policy to the Fine Art Commission?
to which my right hon. and gallant Friend made a reply with which I entirely agreed that:
It is difficult to discuss this matter by question and answer." [OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th December, 1932; col. 724, Vol. 273.]
He has now an opportunity of explaining the position to us in the course of a speech, and I hope that his well-known lucidity of exposition will enable him to make the position clear. On 28th October the permanent Commissioner of
Crown Lands met the Fine Art Commission for the first time.
What, on the whole, is our complaint? Our complaint is that the whole record— the obscure, the somewhat tortuous negotiations which have been going on—is a very remarkable commentary upon the efficiency of the administration of the Crown Lands. We also contend that, as a matter of fact, the building of a single skyscraper at No. 4 Carlton Gardens before any comprehensive scheme for the rebuilding of the whole of that area of London will inflict an eyesore upon the whole of that great processional way to which my hon. and gallant Friend has referred. You have at the present time three leases in Carlton House Terrace which have a further life of 50 years or more. We understand that it is the intention ultimately to build up to this greater height, so that only those of us who can look forward to living the next 60 years may, with a certain amount of confidence, expect to see once more the skyline of Carlton House Terrace restored to its pristine purity as it was before the present Commissioners of Crown Lands began their administration.
I wish to ask one or two questions of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman as to exactly what he has done since first this agitation began in order to try and persuade Messrs. Pinchin Johnson to abandon what are admittedly their legal rights in this lease which was so unfortunately conceded by the Commissioners of Crown Lands. I do not think that one need ask him to come before us in the white robes of a penitent, because I think he did that fairly effectively, although perhaps a little reluctantly, and not altogether gracefully, when he issued his statement to the papers, and said that with regard to the future, in view of the public interest which has beer taken in this question and notwithstanding such considerations as the increasing difficulties of finding tenants and the serious loss to Crown Revenue involved in the houses remaining untenanted, notwithstanding this consideration the Commissioners of Crown Lands did not propose to take any further action in regard to the development of Carlton House Terrace until public opinion has had time and opportunity to express itself and those opinions have been fully considered. The list which appeared the following day —I think it was in the "Times" of
those who have joined the general committee—the Carlton House Terrace Defence Committee—shows, I think, that there has already been time enough for public opinion to express itself, and that anyone might have said that public opinion had expressed itself some months ago.
I ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman whether, during the last few months, he has really made whole-hearted efforts to persuade Messrs. Pinchin Johnson to agree not to build that new building two storeys above the existing level of Carlton House Terrace 1 I ask him whether the approach was made in the first place by Messrs. Pinchin Johnson to the Commissioners of Crown Lands, or whether, as a matter of fact, the approach was made by the Commissioners of Crown Lands to Messrs. Pinchin Johnson? I want to ask him even more urgently, whether, at an earlier stage in these negotiations, he or his colleagues had any indication, formal or informal, that Messrs. Pinchin Johnson would be prepared to consider terms—and fairly favourable terms—upon which they would be prepared to meet what they recognise to be a great volume of public opinion. I want to ask him whether he has tried to persuade them to take over one or two floors in the neighbouring empty house of No. 1 Carlton House Terrace in order that they might have the same area of accommodation that they would have if they insisted upon putting up this building an extra two storeys.
If anyone had any doubts as to the appalling blunders which have been made in this matter of No. 4, Carlton Gardens, surely there cannot now be any doubts when we remember that my hon. Friend the Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) has elicited the information from my right hon. and gallant Friend that there are two fine Regency chimney-pieces in that house which belong to the Commissioners of Crown Lands. Recklessly and thoughtlessly the house was handed over to the housebreakers, and afterwards the National Art Collections Fund came along and bought back those very same chimney-pieces in order that they might be given to a national museum, so that that part of the house, at any rate, might be preserved for the benefit of future generations. If my right hon. Friend is not prepared to depart one jot
or tittle from the announcement that he put in the newspapers, then, whatever may be the future of Carlton House Terrace, for the next 60 years we are to have this coarse, ungainly, incongruous 20th century building in stone standing up above the graceful, dignified stucco architecture of the Regency period, which will stand, I fear, for the next 60 years as a memorial to future generations of the thoughtlessness, the barrenness, the incompetence and the short-sightedness of the present Commissioners of Crown Lands.

8.28 p.m.

Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND: I had hoped that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture would have taken the opportunity of making a reply at an earlier stage of the proceedings, so that the only duty of those of us who might speak after him would have been, perhaps, to thank him for accepting our Resolution, mild in its terms as it is, and for an assurance that so far as the future is concerned there should be an adequate safeguard that mistakes like the one that has been perpetrated, like the mistake that is being perpetrated at this moment, should not occur again. The case has been put with such humour and so forcibly by the hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) and also so forcibly by the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Molson) that I do not wish to take up a great deal of time in trying to reinforce it, but I would urge it strongly upon the attention and consideration of my right hon. Friend from two different aspects.
There are two points which we wish to secure. There is the question of the building now in course of erection. We want to get a modification or a change as complete as we can in that building. Then there is the more general question of the outlook for the future, and a change in the system which will make it, if not impossible, at any rate, difficult, for mistakes of this kind to recur. With regard to the building that is now being erected, we have been told that to make any substantial change either in its height or its character is impossible, that it is too late, that it has gone beyond recall. I refuse to believe that that is so. The erection of the present building is really a villainous business. I would not pretend
for a moment that Carlton House Terrace is the most magnificent architectural building or monument that has ever been constructed by the intelligence of man; far from it, but I do look upon it as a fine, dignified, suitable and harmonious building in an all-important site, overlooking what my hon. Friend has called the great ceremonial way from Buckingham Palace through Whitehall to the Houses of Parliament or Westminster Abbey.
When people condemn Carlton House Terrace for its architecture I cannot help thinking that there are some people who have what I might call the Nash complex, just as there are other people who have the Blomfield complex.

Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: Nobody now.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: If we are criticised because for the time being we prefer the present buildings, until they can be replaced by something equally as good, I ask who are our critics? The critics are the same people who, apparently, are so contemptuous of Nash that when the building at Carlton Gardens was being taken down they threw in the mantel-pieces for nothing and the same fireplaces have been bought back as a specimen for the Victoria and Albert Museum. They were also wanted for another museum, and I am not sure whether that was a more suitable place for the fireplaces or the critics. What we claim is, that we are dealing here with a great ceremonial route, which ought not to be spoilt. It is the only one that there is in London. We are not so well off in London in this respect as some capitals are. Let anyone compare the route from the Arc de Triomphe down to the Place and ask themselves whether the French people would tolerate anything that would spoil that route. We ought not to tolerate anything of the kind in London.
This is part of a residential district, a well-to-do residential district. It is, however, not a question of rich or poor, but a question for every patriotic British citizen who values the greatness and beauty of London as the capital of the Empire. One and all have prized this possession, and one and all, poor as well as rich, have contributed to the defence committee set up to prevent this route from
being entirely spoilt. There is one other question that I would mention, because it deserves to be mentioned, and that is the private interests that are threatened. I do not want to lay too much stress upon the private interests. Private interests, even if they are endangered, are less important than public interests, and must give way, but I must say that, as a specimen of landlordism, what has been done in regard to this building is indeed striking. There is a strictly residential clause in the leases and the Crown forces the residents to keep that clause. It keeps them strictly to the clause, which provides that it shall be a residential area. People pay premiums for their leases and spend money on their houses, and when the Crown comes in, not being strictly bound, or thinking that it is not strictly bound, by these conditions, it proceeds to break the conditions which it imposes on others.
We have always been told that the Crown should be a model employer. It ought to be a model landlord. If action of this kind had been taken by any private landlord it would have been held up to execration as the sort of thing a landlord ought not to do. Private interests should always be subordinate to public interests, but it is only fair that they should receive justice and consideration. A heavy responsibility lies upon those who are responsible for what is now being done. It is important of itself, and it is typical of what may happen in the future, even though we realise that it is a small matter in comparison with the great issues of world troubles which occupy the attention of the Government at the moment, and a small matter compared with the great agricultural questions which occupy the attention of the Minister of Agriculture, as they did of his predecessors. That is true, and we realise it.
Again, we do not want for one moment to go looking for scapegoats; that is the last thing in the minds of those who are raising this question. All we want is to stop the mischief that is being done and prevent the possibility of such mischief occurring in the future. When we asked that the mischief should be stopped, or repaired, as soon as possible, look at the response ! It is seven months since the question was first raised in this House in
the beginning of July. Month after month since then it has been brought before the attention of the authorities. At the end of July or the beginning of August there was the letter from the Chairman of the Royal Fine Art Commission asking that their apprehensions might be brought before the Commissioner of Crown Land. Apparently they were not, a very strange history, but the Commissioner was aware of them at the end of September or the beginning of October, and at that moment it was perfectly easy to repair the whole situation. Nothing was done. The House met. The matter was brought up again at the end of October or the beginning of November—the building was still going on and great apprehensions were being felt.
Just as we were lulled to acquiescence by the answer given in July so we were satisfied by the answer given at the end of October. Then we realised for the first time that the opinion of the Royal Fine Art Commissioners, whose views we believed were to be asked, had not been taken on the whole question. Again, at the end of November, or the beginning of December, the question was brought forward, and again nothing was done. In December, as the building was still going on, apprehensions became more lively, and there was a Debate on the matter in another place. Just before the Adjournment the question was brought up in this House and some of us also wanted to debate the matter on the Adjournment but were not able to do so. All this time, up to a very late date it was possible to prevent this building being erected, which everyone can see now is going to spoil the aspect of our one great ceremonial route through London. I believe it can be stopped now. At any rate, nothing has been done all the time.
We are told that representations have been made. I must state my conviction that I do not believe these representations were made to the firm who are erecting the buildings with the force and energy which might have been used and which might have brought about a different state of affairs to that which exists now. The hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. Bossom) is a great authority on steel structures. I suppose he is one of the greatest authorities as an architect that can be found in the country, and if he were present at the moment he would
say that it is possible, at a much later stage in the erection of a steel structure, as distinct from a structure which depends for its strength on brick or stone, to change its character, and that this might have been done up to a very late stage, even if it cannot be done now. Even now, although it becomes more difficult with every day that passes, it is possible for the greater part of the mischief to be prevented, from the public point of view if not from the point of view of the residents. I refer to the two ugly top storeys which are to rise up over the trees and which will spoil the fine view now enjoyed by everyone. We are told that the firm which is constructing the building cannot afford to do without the accommodation of these two top storeys. As a matter of fact, the next building, No. 1, Carlton House Terrace, is vacant and they could get all the accommodation they want in, that building. The amount of square feet in the two storeys is very little over 5,000 square feet, including passages, and the amount of square feet in No. 1, Carlton House Terrace is over 19,000 square feet, or nearly four times as much. It is perfect nonsense to say that they could not make a communicating passage through and have more accommodation than they will have in the two top storeys. I would urge this point on the Minister of Agriculture. It can be done. Does anyone suppose that the authorities of Paris would allow a building to be put up by a British controlled company completely spoiling the whole view in the Place Vendome? Why, the whole of Paris would have been in an uproar. If in Italy there were a building being put up destroying the look of one of their great ways, it is unthinkable that the work could proceed. Here you have a building being put up for an American controlled company, and it destroys our great ceremonial way. I do not wish to show any animosity against a company controlled for all practical purposes by foreign capital. I believe that if representations were made to the Standard Oil Company that this building at the height proposed was offending the good sense and good taste of so many people in this country, we should not meet with a completely negative response.
When the Carlton House Defence Committee was established it was not a question of going out into the highways and byways and asking people to join. The committee was started, not by any of us politicians, but by a literary man, Mr. J. C. Squire, and the response was amazing and absolutely spontaneous. It came from people whose opinions entitled them to be heard. They were in every walk of life. I say sincerely to the Minister that it is not too late yet to get the worst still abated. I do not believe that such a thing as this could conceivably have been allowed in any other capital in Europe.
Now as regards the future, I would point out again that this particular atrocity does not stand alone; it is only one of a series. Look at Regent Street. If there had been a landlord who had a real taste for building, with leases in Regent Street all likely to fall in at about the same time, just think how he would have loved to have had the opportunity of seeing the great street rebuilt on one great harmonious plan. But we have a street which is the poorest success architecturally as it has been financially, and that is saying a great deal. Think also of the other things that have been prevented. Think of what would have happened if everything had been left to the present kind of administration alone. We would have had in the middle of Regent's Park, on the site of one of the houses there, a great block of very comfortable flats for the well-to-do. Fortunately that was dealt with in time and was prevented. But the fact shows that the present instance does not stand alone. What we ask for assurances about is not only the preservation of Carlton House Terrace. We do not want to have that messed about. It does not follow that when the time comes, if need be, it should not be replaced by something else. As a matter of fact those houses, on the most expert opinion that I can get, can still be used in many ways, partly for dwellings, partly for embassies and partly for other purposes. The houses are alterable a great deal more than critics are ready to concede. But if Carlton House Terrace is to be replaced let it at any rate be replaced on one comprehensive plan with buildings fine in style and on a suitable scale, so that they will not dwarf
surrounding buildings and be incongruous.
We are anxious not only about what may be done in Carlton House Terrace, but about what may be done with other buildings on Crown leases in London. I ask the Minister of Agriculture to agree that we should have some system devised to take the place of the present system of administration, so that in the first place the administration will be better, and secondly, that public opinion outside and inside this House shall know what is going on and be able to express itself. One thing further I ask to have considered, and it goes a little beyond Crown lands. We have here a unique opportunity at the seat of Government. We have on the one side of the Houses of Parliament and the Abbey an amazingly beautiful piece of ground in the Green Park and the great road stretching down the Mall to Whitehall. We can rejoice in a combination of good fortune and Mr. Nash very largely for what we have. But if we are to have a rearrangement we should take into view other beautiful, historic buildings and other areas in London over which there is not yet proper control. All the ground from here to Buckingham Palace ought to be brought into a comprehensive scheme and wisely planned. All modern cities change a little from time to time. The small streets off Victoria Street are changing. If those were brought into a really comprehensive plan, all the district round the seat of Government and the Abbey, up to the Palace, could without question be made the setting for the most beautiful seat of Government in the world. So, as has been said, good may come out of evil. I ask the Minister of Agriculture to stop the evil. That can yet be done as to five-sixths of it. Then let us have the good growing in the future as a beautiful tree firm-rooted in British soil.

8.55 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel APPLIN: When this civilisation of ours has passed away and this Mother of Parliaments no longer exists, on the spot where these Houses now stand will be written the epitaph "Too late." We are always too late in this House and we are too late on the subject which we are considering to-night. We were too late—and here I am not saying anything against the Minister of
Agriculture because the matter was not in his Department—on the question of the Haig statue. It was a fait accompli before the House became aware of it. We are too late in everything in this regard; and there could be no greater monument to the folly of not controlling those who have the building or the rebuilding of this great city, the centre of the Empire, than Park Lane to-day when we remember what Park Lane was a few years ago.
There is, however, something which goes much further than what we here in this House think on these matters. We must remember that London is not only the property of those who live in London. It is not only the property of Great Britain. It is the property of all those men and women who belong to our great Empire. When the beautiful little statue was removed from the centre of Piccadilly Circus and taken away for some years owing to certain work that was being carried out there, I received numbers of letters from friends serving oversea in all parts of the world begging me as a Member of Parliament to do my best to have that little statue replaced. To them, home, London, meant that little statue in Piccadilly Circus. It is one thing which every man remembers when he is out of this country—a small thing, perhaps a thing of little real importance, and yet representing a very strong sentiment binding our people oversea to the Mother Country. Therefore, I plead on behalf of those who live in other parts of the Empire and who come to this country from time to time that we should prevent the ruin of this great city of London, that we should see that it is not turned into a second New York.
We do not want these great buildings in the centre of the city. If it is necessary to have them for commercial purposes place them in the commercial part of London. Let them go somewhere on the other side of Temple Bar or the place where Temple Bar used to stand, but let them be outside that London to which people from all over the world come, and which they admire as a great city. With regard to the particular piece of vandalism which is now under consideration, we owe a great debt of gratitude to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) for having expressed the views of all men
and women of any education or any ideas of artistic beauty, and for having voiced the demand that London should not be spoiled. Again I would remind the House that in these matters in the past we have always been too late. Right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench bring up things at the very last moment when the House is unable to consider them in detail, and then they tell us that we cannot do anything because there is already a fait accompli. They told us, for instance, that nothing could be done about the Statute of Westminster because certain promises had already been made to the Colonies. With everything it is always "too late."

Mr. CHARLES BROWN: That is Conservatism.

Lieut.-Colonel APPLIN: No, it is exactly the opposite. Conservatism means what I am now advocating, and that is the conserving of those good things which we possess, instead of plunging into an uncertain future and erecting the steel building, without foundations, called Socialism which will topple down. I am delighted to support the Motion, and I hope that the Minister of Agriculture will not confine himself merely to his agricultural duties as such, but will consider this grave question of the future of London, and give to the House the assurance for which we have asked.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. MARTIN: So well have previous speakers put the case for this Motion that there would seem to be little left to say, but I wish to mention a point of view which has not yet been indicated. I speak as one who spends a large part of the year in London, but who comes from an industrial area in the provinces. In that area there are so many buildings that are so architecturally disgraceful that they seem a very far cry indeed from the magnificent premises of Carlton House Terrace. Therefore, I am sure that to the people in that and other industrial areas it may seem strange to-morrow morning, especially if gentlemen of the journalistic profession, who have perhaps not quite as much conscience as some of their colleagues, put the matter before them in the columns of their daily papers that we in the House of Commons should spend a couple of hours in discussing one building and some fireplaces in London, and
the action of the Commissioners of Crown Lands in regard to them. But even in those industrial areas we have gems of architecture of which we are proud and which we are glad to see conserved.
I do not quite agree with the Mover of the Motion on the subject of Government control. There exists a very admirable department called the Office of Works, which is responsible for preserving a great many things of beauty throughout this country in districts where otherwise there would be unalloyed stagnation, districts which are from the architectural point of view, a crying shame to those who have brought about such conditions. The industrial revolution laid waste great tracts of the North country, but there are people of every class and in all walks of life who are glad to see certain things preserved, and who, whether they come to London or not, will agree that it is good that what is beautiful in London's architecture should be preserved. I have found a very interesting sentence which expresses rather well what I mean. It is a sentence written recently and is as follows:
Architecture in these latter days has become so complicated, it has sometimes strayed so far from the narrow track of art into the easier paths of financial enterprise that its essence and justification as a serious art of building are in danger of being overlooked.
I commend that sentence to the notice of the House because it was written by the very architect—Sir Reginald Blomfield— who is responsible for this desecration in Carlton Gardens. It seems to me that people in the country, whether they have been expensively educated or not, whether they can be called cultured or not, are quite capable of appreciating these architectural features. The people who walk about London every day, the people who come to London for short visits, whether they know anything about periods of architecture or not, whether they know who built Carlton House Terrace or not, appreciate beauty, and would abhor the desecration of one enormous jagged building sticking up on that site. Whether they would notice the ghastly building on the other side of the Park I do not know, but where there is a beautiful thing, they would notice more readily that something ugly had been superimposed and the harmony thereby ruined.
The speakers who have preceded me have dealt with the details of the quarrel over this matter, and with, shall I call it, the ghastly blunder of the Permanent Commissioner in this respect. I take it that the Permanent Commissioner is really at the bottom of this affair and not the Minister of Agriculture, because after all that office changed hands during the important period of these negotiations. Therefore, I urge that some steps should be taken—and I hope the Minister of Agriculture will agree with me in this —to remove from such a man as the present Permanent Commissioner any right or possibility of committing such a blunder in the future. I would also add the hope that it is not too late, as the last speaker has said, to stop the building going up some 40 feet above Carlton House Terrace. I therefore appeal to the Minister to consider that it is not only cultured opinion, but the sort of opinion that would be held by the people of the country and of the Empire, that would much appreciate it if he could see his way to agreeing with this Motion.

9.6 p.m.

Sir ERNEST GRAHAM-LITTLE: I listened a few weeks ago to an extremely interesting lecture by one of the greatest mechanical engineers in either Europe or America, and his considered judgment about the present advance of machinery, in regard to which he himself is so great an expert, was that the greatest danger that faced the modern world from that advance was the complete neglect of beauty; and he pointed out that the great desideratum of the present phase of our civilisation was a reverence for taste, using that word "taste" in its highest aesthetic sense. Surely we have become witnesses of a very remarkable slighting of that principle in the very deplorable instances which have been produced to-night as examples of what one can only call a perfectly astonishing neglect of taking thought for the future. It is not a question of getting the highest rent, as I hope will be quite evident, and it is a question of following a real principle. Those of us who are familiar with Carlton House Terrace—and many Members of this House are members of a club which backs that Terrace—must have been conscious of its extreme beauty and the damage which must be done when that
lovely vista is taken away from the south side of that position.
I hope the Minister will take counsel and thought from the fact that he is a member of my profession, and that we are not wont to say that nothing can be done to alter, for example, the scheme of an operation. The patient may be under an anaesthetic at the present moment, but the operation can be changed, and I hope that even some possibility of stopping this very dreadful operation may still be found. The very fact that this is a steel and concrete building makes a change of plans much more possible than if it were any other material. For all those considerations, I sincerely hope the Minister will not only be able to announce that there will be a cessation in this direction, but will accept, on behalf of the Government, the very moderate Motion which is on the Order Paper.

9.9 p.m.

Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: I wish to lay a little more stress than the right hon. Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) laid upon one matter in connection with this question. I wish to point out the injustice that has been done to the tenants who are now living in Carlton House Terrace, a grave injustice which they are entitled strongly to resent. They were required, when they took the leases of their houses, to bind themselves not to use their houses for commercial purposes, and they were given to understand that that condition was imposed upon all those who took leases of houses in Carlton House Terrace. Having taken the leases on that understanding, they now find that a large structure is erected in the Terrace for commercial purposes. They have resented the action of the Crown Commissioners in this matter very much. May I read to the House two brief extracts from letters written by two of the tenants, in which they express their views of the conduct of the Commissioners? The tenant of No. 3, Carlton Gardens has written:
I purchased the lease of No. 3, Carlton Gardens, about a year ago, and have since spent some £16,000 on permanent improvements. Nearly all the existing leases specifically preclude lessees from using the premises for any purpose other than that of a private dwelling-house; and it is upon the guarantee implicit in this restriction that the leases were acquired. If there had been any indication of the remotest possi-
bility of one of the neighbouring houses being used for business purposes, I should certainly not have purchased my lease. It seems clearly unfair that the restriction upon the use of their premises observed by the existing lessees should not be imposed on future tenants.
Then another tenant, the tenant of No. 22a, Carlton House Terrace, writes:
I was given to understand at the time I purchased my house that the strict regulations in connection with building restrictions, etc., etc., would never be departed from; otherwise I would not have spent anything like the amount I did on my house; and neither would I have paid so much for the lease.
He goes on to give a rather interesting fact, for he writes:
When I bought the lease of 22a, Carlton House Terrace my great aim was to have the house rebuilt in Portland stone, and my architect, Mr. Arthur Davis, of 22, Conduit Street, W., drew up plans accordingly. These were rejected by the Commissioners, who insisted that the house should be built in the same material as the rest of the houses in the Terrace and Gardens, and their action in allowing a tall building to be erected in Portland stone, which will be occupied as offices, whereas they would not allow me to build my house in Portland stone, is most inconsistent. They would not even allow any chimneys to be used, so that my architect's original plans had to be altered.
I think these people have a very just grievance, and if they should take it upon themselves to go to law—one has not considered the matter in detail—are the expenses of resisting what I should regard as their just claims for compensation to be met out of funds coming from the Crown? The thing is unthinkable. That is but one aspect—the injustice to the tenants—but it is one which I thought ought to be brought before the House, and it is one which I hope the House will remember in making up its mind on this subject.

9.14 p.m.

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Major Elliot): I am sure that we must all of us feel a debt of gratitude to the Mover of this Motion, who took advan-take of his luck in the Ballot to put down for discussion to-day this subject, which, as he himself said, is topical and which has raised a great deal of interest both in this House and in the columns of the Press. I think it is greatly to the advantage of all of us that it should be possible to have the matter discussed on the Floor of the House of Commons, where alone
these matters can be fully thrashed out and where the points for and against can be put and considered by hon. and right hon. Members, such as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gains-borough (Captain Crookshank) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland), who has given so much care and attention to the consideration of this subject.
In the first place, I myself specially welcome this Debate, because I think it is clear that there has been a misunderstanding, that it is desirable that that misunderstanding should be cleared up, and that steps should be taken so that such a misunderstanding should not occur again. The difficulties in front of those who have the responsible task of administering Crown estates and Crown lands are great. I do not need to recapitulate the history of Crown Lands. This is not the proper time to go into the whole history from the time when they formed a substantial source of the revenues of this country. Large as those Crown Land revenues are to-day, they would form an exiguous portion of the Supply which His Majesty requires to carry on the activities of the Empire. One of the difficulties with which those who administer these estates are faced is that some of them cover a vast acreage of rural as well as of urban land and many problems of rural administration are raised in the administration of that land. It is highly desirable that those who are tenants of Crown lands should feel that they are not merely tenants of a Government Department, but have actually a landlord from whom they can expect redress.
The Crown lands do not, however, contain only these great agricultural estates. They contain large town estates and the historical properties in London for which the House is especially concerned to-night. I am not disposed to deal with the question which has been raised regarding previous development. A certain portion of the Crown lands is certainly concerned in the Regent Street development, but I do not want to touch on that, although if the House wishes it I will touch on that also. I wish to address myself particularly to the question which is raised in the Motion—the decision of the Commissioners with
regard to No. 4, Carlton Gardens, and the uneasiness felt as to the future of Carlton House Terrace, etc. Let me clear up the first point by saying that the decisions of the Commissioners of Crown Lands are the decisions of two Commissioners, namely, the Permanent Commissioner and the Parliamentary Commissioner, who is the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries. The decisions to be taken with regard to 4, Carlton Gardens were, of course, taken by my right hon. Friend the present Home Secretary, who is unfortunately confined to his house with that very prevalent illness, influenza. But for that, he would himself have wished to be present to speak on this matter.
I wish to make it quite clear that the decisions of the Commissioners were decisions both of the permanent Commissioner and of the Parliamentary Commissioner; and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and myself take full responsibility for those decisions. The decisions were not those of permanent officials smuggled through in some fashion without the attention of the Minister having been called to them. They were the decisions of the two Commissioners in full consultation, the whole matter having been thoroughly canvassed and examined in repeated interviews, and they were come to with a full sense of the responsibility which those decisions entailed. One of the grounds of accusation has been that something has been done in a hole and corner fashion, smuggled through, as the hon. and gallant Member for Enfield (Lieut.-Colonel Applin) said, so that the House was presented with something too late. Let me deal with that next because it is very important.
The matter which we are discussing began as far back as the 28th April last year when there was an interview between Messrs. Pinchin Johnson and Company and the Commissioners of Crown Lands with a view to obtaining a building lease of the site of No. 4, Carlton Gardens. I was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Molson) whether Messrs Pinchin Johnson and Company approached the Commissioners or the Commissioners approached the company. I am informed that the firm approached the Commissioners. That is the first point he raised. On the 29th
April the position arising in regard to that application was fully discussed between the permanent Commissioner and the then Minister of Agriculture, and after full consideration of the facts as to the change of user of the site which would be necessitated by a grant of the lease the Minister decided that the change in circumstances rendered it advisable that the lease should be granted, subject to a building being erected of satisfactory artistic appearance upon which the views of the Royal Fine Art Commission would be available. It was subsequently arranged by Messrs. Pinchin Johnson and Company to employ Sir Reginald Blomfield, who was a senior professional member of the Commission, to prepare designs of the building. That deals with the second point of my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster. He asked what the position of Sir Reginald Blomfield was. He was the firm's architect. He asked why Sir Reginald laid plans before the Royal Fine Art Commission. He was the firm's architect, and naturally he laid the plans before the body which was to give a judgment upon the plans.

Mr. MOLSON: Does that account for Sir Reginald Blomfield laying before the Fine Art Commission a sketch endeavouring to show a design of the rebuilding of the whole of Carlton House, which he alleged that the Commissioners of Crown Lands had in view?

Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: Apart from the design, the object of the building was commercial, and was it appreciated that that purpose was inconsistent with the covenants entered into by the other tenants? Was it fair to them to contemplate a building which was contrary to those covenants?

Major ELLIOT: I will deal with the points one at a time. The plans of No. 4 were laid before the Fine Art Commission by Sir Reginald Blomfield. At the same time he brought forward a sketch to show how, in his opinion, a development could be worked in. That was not the sketch of the Commissioners of Crown Lands, nor had it been commissioned by them, nor has it been commissioned. It was obviously within the option of anyone to present a sketch showing anything, and Sir Reginald Blomfield claims no further authority than
that for the sketch which he put before the Fine Art Commission.

Mr. MARTIN: Did the Fine Art Commission even know the height of the building, and had the height of the building submitted to them anything to do with the height of the building Sir Reginald Blomfield sketched out?

Major ELLIOT: I am anxious to develop my points in a logical manner and to follow out the proceedings step by step. I had got to the stage when the plans were laid before the Fine Art Commission by Sir Reginald Blomfield, and I have, I hope, made it clear that these plans were the plans of No. 4 which Sir Reginald was commissioned to lay before the Fine Art Commission by the firm whose architect he was. That he also submitted a further sketch was a matter for his own judgment, and it was on his own responsibility. On 30th June, the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. Bossom) who, as the right hon. Member for Tam-worth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) said, has pecular opportunities of judging architectural structures of this kind, and who is also a resident within literally a stone's throw of the building which it is proposed to erect, got into touch with my right hon. Friend the then Minister of Agriculture. He raised objections to the proposed building and brought up all the points which my hon. Friend has just mentioned; and the reasons that have actuated the Commissioners in their decision to grant the lease were fully explained to the hon. Member for Maidstone as long ago as 30th June and subsequently confirmed by letter. Since it is suggested that these matters were not fully brought to the notice of Members of the House, I will read the letter which was addressed to a Member of Parliament actually living in Carlton Gardens:
I have considered very carefully all the points which you put to me recently when we discussed the proposal for the erection of a commercial building on the site of No. 4, Carlton Gardens.
Will the House note the date of the letter, 11th July, long before the House rose?
In the first place, let me set at rest your fears that the Commissioners of Crown Lands are taking advantage of their privileged position to override the law. As regards the London Building Act, the position is that all building agreements on the Crown Estates in London are expressly
made subject to the provisions of that Act, and this case is no exception to the rule. As regards the contractual position, implied in the covenant restricting the user of the houses in Carlton Gardens and Carlton House Terrace for private residences only, I should point out that this convenant is qualified by the words ' without the consent, in writing, of the lessor '.
As a matter of fact, there was a slip in that letter and these words are not applicable to the house of the ton. Member for Maidstone but they do apply to the site on which this building is to be erected.
Excluding No. 9, Carlton House Terrace, which for more than 80 years has been used for the official purposes of a Foreign Embassy, there are 34 houses, of which no less than eight have been released from this restrictive covenant in the last 10 years. In other words, the Commissioners have merely done what so many of the principal private landowners in London have been forced to do since the War. From some points of view such action is, no doubt, regrettable, but it is necessitated by the force of circumstances and no element of illegality arises.
The Commissioners are faced with a difficult problem, as I think you agree, and in meeting it they are obliged to consider both their duty to the nation as collectors of revenue and their duty to their lessees.
At present, there are two houses, one of which is No. 4, Carlton Gardens, unlet, and allowing for the cost of caretaking, etc., the loss to the Exchequer is more than £3,000 a year.
Not the £350 a year mentioned by my economical friend the hon. Member for Gainsborough.

Captain CROOKSHANK: The sum of £350 was the difference between the two leases.

Major ELLIOT: Yes, but on one lease we were getting nothing at all. The loss to the Exchequer would be £3,000 per annum.
I understand that another house will shortly come into hand; others will inevitably be added as time goes on, and we are bound to consider any reasonable proposal for reletting. I have gone into the whole question very carefully, and I do not think that reletting for commercial purposes— provided there are adequate safeguards—is unreasonable. The proposed new building in Carlton Gardens will be occupied as the head office of a very old and substantial corporation, and after 6 o'clock in the evening will be perfectly quiet. It should interfere even less than the Union Club and the German Embassy with the amenities of the private residents.
I do not suppose that all members of the German Embassy or of the Union Club go home by six o'clock.
The lessees will, of course, be bound by rigorous covenants against the display of advertisements or anything of that sort.
Your suggestion that all the houses between Carlton Gardens and the German Embassy might well be converted into a hotel, a great part of which would be let off in residential suites and apartments, is not, I think you will agree, one that could be considered for the present. If, however, this idea materialised, it is doubtful whether a large hotel, with much coming and going at all hours of the day and night, would be regarded as a more agreeable neighbour than a quiet office building.
With regard to your point that approval of the proposed rebuilding of No. 4, Carlton Gardens would depreciate the value of the existing leases, I can only say that there are five houses standing empty to-day, and although of course I cannot mention names, I have every reason to believe that some of the residents would readily assign their leases if they could. But the demand for houses of this type seems to be dead and I see no likelihood that it will revive. Some of the houses on the North side of Carlton House Terrace have been converted into flats and maisonettes, but these are all houses of comparatively recent construction. I am advised that the older houses, built more than a century ago, with enormous basements, high reception rooms, wide staircases, and very poor accommodation for servants, cannot be so converted. An attempt was made in one case a few years ago, but it resulted in a costly failure. I believe that when it becomes known that the Commissioners are prepared to consider schemes for redevelopment on this potentially very valuable site, the value of the outstanding leases will increase.
As regards the planning of the new building, I feel sure that you can safely trust the Royal Fine Arts Commission to see that it is worthy of the site.
I know that you recognise my difficulties and responsibilities in a matter like this, and I can only say that I am very sorry that I am unable to meet your point of view.
The House will see that this matter received the exhaustive consideration of the Minister. Whether the decision is right or wrong, the suggestion that something was done in a hole-and-corner fashion, either by the Government or by the Commissioners, and was smuggled through this House and not communicated to the Members of the House who were most interested and most informed and most able to bring it to the notice of other Members of the House, cannot stand for a moment in view of the long letter I have just read.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Does the Minister assume from this one letter to one Member that the whole of the House was informed what would happen? The question I put at the beginning of July was with reference to the height of the building from the public point of view, and we were told by the Minister of Agriculture that any new building on the site would be subject to the provisions of the London Building Acts and the Commissioners of Crown Lands had further stipulated that plans must be submitted to the Royal Fine Art Commission. The only conceivable inference any sensible man could draw from that was that the opinion of the Fine Art Commission was going to be invoked on the scheme submitted. I would ask whether that was done?

Major ELLIOT: As I say, I have to carry out this Debate under a certain amount of difficulty, but it is right that these points should be raised. I am endeavouring to develop the argument step by step. At any rate, it is very clear from that letter that Members knew what was going on. It was addressed to a Member who lives close to Carlton House Terrace and Members are in touch with each other, and a Member whose house is threatened by a new commercial building can get in touch with others. It was impossible to give fuller information than was given by that letter by the Minister to a Member of this House.
As regards the further point about the proposals laid before the Fine Art Commission, I shall come to that in due course. The next point is the terms of the new lease which were submitted on 7th July to the Treasury for authority subject to the plans of the new building being submitted to the Royal Fine Art Commission. On 18th July the agreement was entered into with Pinchin Johnson subject to approval of the plans by the Fine Art Commission. On 27th July Sir Reginald Blomfield submitted plans to the Royal Fine Art Commission. The plans submitted showed the elevation of the proposed new building. A sketch, as I said, was submitted by Sir Reginald Blomfield showing how that design would fit in with the rebuilding of the whole block up to the level allowed by the London Building Acts, which the Minister decided in consultation with his advisers, was a necessary measure if and when rebuilding should take place.
Of course, the plan showed on the face of it the height of the building, and the Royal Fine Art Commission were a body fully conversant with the study of plans. On the 28th July approval was given by the Royal Fine Art Commission in the following terms:
The Royal Fine Art Commission approve the proposed building for Messrs. Pinchin Johnson and Company, but desire that the upper part of the southern party wall should not appear unsightly from the Mall.
It is clear from the terms of the approval not merely that they understood the height of the building but that they understood that one of the difficulties of this higher building was that the piece appearing above the skyline of the existing Carlton House Terrace would show a face to the Mall, and that it was desirable that some treatment should be given to the piece of wall which was going to appear above the line of the existing buildings.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: It is very hard for the Minister to have to speak amid interruptions, and we hesitate, for that reason, to interrupt him, but did not the Chairman of the Royal Fine Art Commission state definitely in the House of Lords that the opinion of the Royal Fine Art Commission on the scheme as a whole was not invited? Those were the actual words he used in another place.

Major ELLIOT: Of course, the scheme as a whole was not submitted to him. What was submitted to him were the plans of No. 4.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: No. 4 as a whole was not submitted to him.

Major ELLIOT: There is no question whatever that No. 4 as a whole was submitted to the Fine Art Commission. I am now coming to the point where it is clear to me that the misunderstanding took place. I said at the opening it was clear that at some point or other there had been misunderstanding, and that it was a regrettable fact, and that I would submit to the House proposals which I hope will deal with the disappointment which is universally felt at such a misunderstanding and will I hope obviate the chance of such a misunderstanding occurring again. It certainly was true that no recommendation as to the height was submitted by the Royal Fine Art Commission. It appeared that at that
time they considered themselves precluded from making any recommendation to the Commissioners of Crown Lands as regards the height. All I would say is that they do not appear to have felt themselves precluded from making recommendations since that time. For some reason the Fine Art Commission considered that the whole question of height was a settled matter, and could not be re-opened, and that therefore they were not at liberty to make any recommendation to the Commissioners of Crown Lands on that aspect of the problem. I think it is a pity that no such advice was given. It is true that the Minister had decided that the building could be carried up to the full height permitted by the London Building Act, but I am certain that if at that stage recommendations bad been submitted by a body of the weight and authority of the Fine Art Commission they would certainly have received his attention. At any rate, it would have been a very great responsibility if he had disregarded such recommendation, a responsibility which it is difficult to attach to him when, as a matter of fact, no such recommendation was put forward in connection with the approval given by the Fine Art Commission. Here, apparently, the misunderstanding arose. On receiving the approval of the Fine Art Commission the Minister gave his sanction, and the two Commissions being then in agreement, binding engagements were entered into, and from that time on Messrs. Pinchin, Johnson and Company were within their legal rights in proceeding with the building which had thus been sanctioned and approved and no alteration of that building or those plans can be undertaken except either with the consent and desire of the firm in question or the payment by this House of compensation which, I can assure the House, would not be a light sum.

Colonel APPLIN: Too late.

Major ELLIOT: Not at all; it is always too late after a decision has been come to; but the fact that a decision was about to be entered upon was fully canvassed. My hon. and gallant Friend as a soldier must often have taken decisions and acted upon them, and what he thought afterwards had no bearing
on the point. Decisions have to be taken and schemes have to be proceeded with. Approval was given, the decision was taken, and the building was commenced, and now only by the will of the firm or the payment of compensation by this House can any alteration now be entered upon.

Mr. MOLSON: Apparently these plans were submitted and an undertaking was given by the Commissioners of Crown Lands that they should be approved by the Fine Art Commission, but no communication took place between the Fine Art Commission and the Commissioners of Crown Lands. It was left to the discretion of the architect concerned to get the plans approved. This is what Sir Reginald Blomfield wrote to the "Times" on 13th December:
The Crown instructed me that the dignified residential character of Carlton House Terrace must be preserved in the facades and that in view of the high ground rents that would have to be asked for these very valuable sites intending tenants would be permitted to build to the full height permissible under the London County Council regulations with due regard to aesthetic considerations.
I ask the Minister whether it was possible for the Fine Art Commission to express any opinion upon the question of height at all when the intermediary, if I may so express it, between the Commissioners of Crown Lands and the Fine Art Commission said that intending tenants would be permitted to build up to the full height? A further point is this: What was the possible justification for this architect producing plans of a projected rebuilding of the whole of the site in order to obtain assent to the building of particular erections which were to be put on the site?

Major ELLIOT: As to the second point, anybody who is preparing plans for one house is likely to be challenged with the question; "Will this fit into a scheme for the neighbourhood as a whole?" and he is entitled to say: "It will fit into the scheme for the neighbourhood. If I were asked to prepare such a scheme this is the sort of scheme I would prepare."

Sir JOSEPH NALL: If the whole neighbourhood is changed !

Major ELLIOT: The question is, would it fit into a scheme for re-developing this neighbourhood, and he is en-
titled to submit such a scheme without any responsibility on his part or on the part of the body examining the scheme. When the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Molson) says the Fine Art Commission were precluded from making any statement by the statement of Sir Reginald Blomfield that the tenants would be permitted to build to the full height allowed under the London County Council regulations, does he contend that it stopped them from making recommendations since? Have not the Fine Art Commission repeatedly written to the papers and made it quite clear that they wished this not to be carried up to the full height? My only contention is that through some hiatus or misunderstanding between the two responsible bodies that opinion of the Fine Art Commission was not, in fact, received by the Commissioners for Crown Lands. If my hon. and gallant Friend wishes to interrupt I am quite willing to give way.

Mr. MOLSON: When Lord Crawford writes to the papers he is obviously in the position that he is defending himself and he may put forward any arguments which appeal to him at the time. What I am pressing upon my right hon. Friend is that a pledge was given to this House that before that building was put up it was to receive the assent of the Fine Art Commission. In the terms of reference of the Fine Art Commission they considered themselves justified, from the way in which it was put forward by Sir Reginald Blomfield, in regarding themselves as estopped from proceeding with the matter.

Major ELLIOT: That is exactly what I said in the beginning of my speech, what I say now, and what I am bringing forward proposals to obviate before I sit down. There was in fact that misunderstanding. That is what occurred and what I admit occurred, and it is that which we desire to obviate. The Royal Fine Art Commission indicated to the commissioners that, in their very words, the upper part of the southern party wall should not appear unsightly from the Mall. I do not think it would have been impossible for them to have said that in their opinion it would be much better if no part of the party wall appeared visible from the Mall at all, in view of the statements which have been issued since; and of course they, like any public
body, are entitled to have opinions and are entitled to express such opinions—

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: May I ask if those opinions were conveyed at the time to the Crown Lands Commissioners through the Chairman?

Major ELLIOT: I can only say that I am speaking as a Commissioner of Crown Lands and that we received the recommendation as quoted and no other recommendation. That indicates that that opinion was not conveyed in the same way, in the same terms and at the same time as when the specific sanction was given, in virtue of which sanction my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary had no alternative but to allow the firm to proceed, all the conditions having been satisfied. This recommendation reached the Commissioners of Crown Lands and the others did not. It is for that purpose that we are debating this matter here to-night, and it is for that purpose that we are bringing proposals forward to-day.
I want to deal first of all with the suggestions that have been made, one of them made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth, that nothing was done. Sanction having been given, the work was proceeded with. The question was raised on several occasions in the House, and hon. and right hon. Friends felt a certain uneasiness more particularly in regard to the two top storeys. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth in his speech made a point of asking whether Messrs. Pinchin Johnson had been approached. My right hon. Friend brings forward the suggestion that there was an empty house next door. The Commissioners of Crown Lands are the landlords of the house next door, and the fact that there was an empty house had not escaped their notice. On the 5th December they went to Messrs. Pinchin, Johnson with an offer, not merely of accommodation in the house next door but of a reduction in the ground rent if they would accept vacant accommodation equivalent to the two top storeys in the house next door. Messrs. Pinchin, Johnson, after consideration, replied that they were not able to accept that offer. That disposes of the statement of my right hon. Friend that nothing was done.
So willing and so anxious were we to fall in with the desires of hon. Members that we adopted long in advance the course now recommended to us, though I
do not admit for a moment that the building whether as completed or not is likely to disfigure the outlook. We are dealing with a great British architect who however much we may differ from his combative views, has given to this city many great works and has given to the public life of his country many great controversies. I am not at all inclined to admit that a building by Sir Reginald Blomfield is an eyesore in any vista or in any architectural feature in this country, however noble the vista or however distinguished the architectural features may be. The firm was also approached by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tam-worth, and they were also unable to fall in with his proposal. We are told that nothing was done. In my anxiety to make sure that no misunderstanding was taking place on this occasion I myself approached the firm. Before the House rose at Christmas my secretary enquired whether any useful purpose could be served by an interview. The firm answered quite reasonably, and perfectly within their rights, that they thought that no good purpose would be served by an interview. So the Commissioner went, and the Parliamentary Commissioner went, and the unofficial body which is presided over by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth also made an approach. Therefore any suggestion that this position might easily have been smoothed over if the parties had got into touch is one which I have shown is not borne out by the facts.

Sir E. GRAHAM - LITTLE: The Minister has put forward the suggestion that some offer of compensation could have been accepted by this firm.

Major ELLIOT: I do not know that it is desirable or necessary to explore that further. I have indicated that a reduction in the ground rent for other accommodation could have been accepted in the house next door. When it was suggested that we should explore the suggestion, as we were bound to explore the suggestion that it might be desirable for some other alteration to take place, the firm said that it was not what they desired and that they did not wish to alter their intentions even under compensation. So far as compensation was concerned the figure suggested was a figure entirely out of any scale which
could have been considered for a moment by this House or by any hon. Member of the House.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The right hon. Gentleman referred to me. Any correspondence that took place between myself and the firm with the concurrence of certain other hon. Members was without any backing from the Government. I repeat again when he says that everything was done that in the opinion of many of us that if the case had been put by the Government with real determination and with cogency and with force much more might have been done.

Major ELLIOT: When my right hon. Friend says that the matter was not put with cogency and force all I can say is that it was brought forward by the permanent Commissioner and by the Parliamentary Commissioner; by a civil servant and by a Cabinet Minister. I do not know what else he would have done to proceed with it. I think that every step was taken which could reasonably have been taken. In fact, the point; which arose in my mind during the proceeding was as to whether the question and the exploration was not being pushed too far especially as the result of those explorations if they had been successful would have been to cast an additional burden upon the public funds and therefore upon the taxpayers of this country who at the present moment are being squeezed and ground down and whom hon. and right hon. Members who bring forward these proposals are the first to protect. I have dealt with the question whether all was done that could have been done to modify the situation as it developed, and I think I have shown that, as far at any rate as the Commissioners of Crown Lands were concerned, further steps could not reasonably or usefully or with dignity have been taken. Although my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gainsborough did not disregard the suggestion that economy was a vital issue in this as in every act of the administration of the time, he indicated that this trust was so rich, that its revenues were so abundant, that the sums which it paid into the public purse were so great, that a small matter like this, of a few thousand pounds, could easily have been overlooked in this connection. There I join issue with him. If
you take care of the pence, the pounds will look after themselves.

Captain CROOKSHANK: I have not interrupted my right hon. and gallant Friend, but, really, he has asked for it. I am sure I never meant any such thing to be deduced from what I said. I pointed out that a good estate manager takes into account all his revenues; and let me remind my right hon. and gallant Friend that the Crown Lands Commissioners receive from investment income over £100,000 a year. Goodness knows why they have to have investments.

Major ELLIOT: Now my hon. and gallant Friend is bringing forward a novel complaint, namely, that the Commissioners of Crown Lands have investments bringing in a revenue which relieves the taxpayers of the country. I agree that they are of course bringing in large sums, but I say that, unless we guarded and watched every penny of such funds, the burden upon the taxpayers of this country would be even greater than it is to-day. When my hon. and gallant Friend brings forward the case of Regent Street, I would remind him that there at any rate is a group of persons who would look with the greatest uneasiness upon the use of any proportion of the funds derived from their rents for the purpose of paying compensation, on what they would certainly regard as an extravagant scale, to this firm, who are paying a rent, which although it is well within their power to pay, is far higher than was obtained from the residential users of this estate previously. So much for the economy aspect of the matter. The difficulties with which we are faced are of course not covered by any historical account of the proceedings up to date, and I am sure the House as a whole will be more interested to see what is the present attitude of the Government towards this Motion and the proposals which it brings forward. In the first place, we intend to accept the Motion— [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Certainly. The Motion
urges the Government to take immediate steps to reorganise the administration of Crown lands.
It has been my opinion, from the first moment that I entered upon my office, that the present position of the administration of Crown Lands was not by any means entirely satisfactory. There
is a civil servant who is the co-equal of his Parliamentary colleague. He is, as a civil servant, subject to criticism to which he is in no position to reply. He is dealing with a great number of transactions, all of which have to be considered in the light of their special circumstances, and questions of general policy seldom arise, and, when a policy is laid down, the exceptions to it are apt to be more numerous and important than the cases in which it is literally applied. The practice which up to the present has been followed, with the approval of successive Ministries, Labour as well as Conservative, is for the permanent Commissioner to consult the Minister before committing the Commissioners in any case which appears likely to provoke criticism in Parliament, or to be of special interest in connection with the agricultural policy of the Government. This involves the permanent Commissioner in policy, and he must be open to attack over decisions of policy even though taken after full consultation with the Minister. He is open to criticism, to which he cannot reply, and it seems to us to be desirable that steps should be taken to obviate this difficulty in the future. Under the existing Statute, the Treasury have the power to determine the distribution of duties between the Commissioners. We propose, in the first place, so to arrange this distribution in future that the Minister shall be solely responsible for decisions of policy, and shall be responsible to Parliament for such decisions. The second point of the Motion is:
to secure that in any future decision educated and responsible opinion shall be fully taken into consideration.
I certainly think that one of the difficulties of the situation has been that that vast body of opinion which, as has been pointed out by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Enfield (Lieut. -Colonel Applin) and others, feels a sense of possession in all those things, has felt that it has in a way been stifled, that it has not had some recognised channel by which its wishes could be brought to the notice of those responsible before these final decisions were taken. It is all very well for the Leader of the Opposition to laugh. I have noticed great bitterness among those of his followers who are out of this House and are finding difficulty in getting their opinions brought to its notice. We shall ensure in future that that opinion shall have direct access as a
right to the responsible Minister when these decisions are in contemplation. Under the Crown Lands Acts Treasury authority is necessary before any lease of a substantial character can be granted by the Commissioners of Crown Lands. The Government propose that the powers of the Treasury shall be used in future to ensure that on questions involving aesthetic and other important considerations, such as town planning and so on, independent advice and opinion shall be obtained before commitments are entered into. Therefore, the First Lord of the Treasury, that is to say, the Prime Minister, authorises me to say that he will invite suitable persons, not exceeding, say, five in number, to consider and advise the Minister on these questions when they are raised. This, of course, will be an ad hoc body, specially concerned with Crown land affairs of this character; it is not intended that it should in any way side-track the Royal Fine Art Commission, whose advice will continue to be sought as heretofore.
I hope I have been able to assure the House that, first, the Government have given this matter very close consideration; secondly, that they have acted with a sense of responsibility all the way through; and, thirdly, that they have taken account of the opinion of the House, more particularly as put forward by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gainsborough and by my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster. On the executive part of their Motion, which deals with the reorganisation of the administration of Crown lands, and the part which deals with the access of public opinion to the Minister before these important decisions are taken, we have met them, in the first place, by reorganisation, so that there shall be only one person responsible, namely, the Minister, and, secondly, by a committee of, say, five persons selected by the Prime Minister himself, and therefore not a purely departmental committee, who shall be necessarily consulted before these decisions are taken. I shall, of course, be very glad to consult with my right hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gainsborough, my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, and others who have been interested in this matter, on the proposal
with regard to a committee, and to discuss with them what persons or interests it might be suitable to have represented on such a body, such as town planning and aesthetic interests and others. I shall be very glad also to consult with my right hon. and hon. Friends of the Opposition, because, of course, this is not in any sense a party question. I hope the House will consider that this important matter has had justice done to it, and will accept our assurance that it is our desire in the future, as in the past, to see that misunderstandings do not arise, or that, if they do arise, suitable methods are devised to obviate their recurrence.

Resolved,
That, in view of the widely-expressed dissatisfaction over the recent decisions of the Commissioners of Crown Lands with regard to No. 4, Carlton Gardens, and the uneasiness still felt as to the future of Carlton House Terrace, Carlton Gardens, and other Crown lands in London, this House urges the Government to take immediate steps to reorganise the administration of Crown lands and in particular to secure that in any future decision educated and responsible opinion shall be fully taken into consideration.

LANCASHIRE COTTON INDUSTRY.

10.6 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir WALTER SMILES: I beg to move,
That this House views with grave concern the decline in the export of cotton piece goods from Lancashire and urges the Government to take all possible steps to assist this great industry.
The principal industry of Lancashire is this great cotton industry. If you scratch a Russian, you find a Tartar, but if you scratch a Lancashire man you find some of the finest woven cotton cloth. The issue at the whole of the last Election in Lancashire was never such a thing as the means test. The only question we were asked was: "When are you going to get our cotton mills to work again?" It is very depressing to have to go back to Lancashire now and to feel that the employment figures in the cotton industry are still very bad. People are drifting out of the cotton industry; people whose fathers, grandfathers and perhaps greater and fathers have been employed as weavers are now having to look elsewhere for their livelihood. It is a very
moderate figure to say that there are at least 160,000 unemployed in Lancashire due to the depression in the Lancashire cotton industry. To the Lancashire Members about me it is unnecessary to draw any picture of the mills idle there, some of them emptied of machinery for ever, with their looms perhaps sold to Brazil at scrap prices, £l per loom, to compete now with us in the markets overseas. The Lancashire people are well aware of the fact that names illustrious in the cotton industry, like Hornsby, are now out of it for ever, and that people are beginning to look round for other means of employment.
I have to admit that this is one of the most difficult industries which the Government have to assist. If it is a question of tomatoes or raspberries, it is almost a simple matter to assist the market gardeners of this country by means of quotas or tariffs, but when it comes to a question of markets overseas, it is a case of treaties or obligations, and a very difficult matter of negotiation it is. I see that there are two commercial treaties being discussed at the present moment, one, I understand, with the Scandinavia countries and the other with the Argentine. Of course, in Scandinavia I suppose one stands a better chance of selling things like Jaeger or Wolsey garments rather than the dainty fabrics manufactured by Tootal-Broadhurst. Nevertheless, summer-time comes, and girls will be girls, and there must be a chance of an opening there for Lancashire cotton goods. I trust that when that treaty is concluded we shall see Lancashire goods, cotton textiles, a prominent part of that agreement. In the Argentine there is a much warmer climate, and possibly there are better openings there. We all know the difficulties of supplying cheap meat for our working population here, but when an agreement is made with the Argentine, I sincerely hope that we are going to see the exports of cotton textile goods into South America increase.
After foreign countries come the Dominions, and I am glad to say that in the terms of the Ottawa Agreement our mills in Lancashire are to be given a fair chance of competition with those in our Dominions overseas. Australia has always been a good purchaser of Lancashire goods, and I hope that now she is through the crisis these quantities will
increase. When, however, we come to the Colonies, matters are rather disappointing. I was glad to see a letter in the "Times" which reported that the Secretary of State for the Colonies had taken up matters with the State Assembly in Ceylon with regard to the fact that no preference has been given to Lancashire textile goods. I am a tea-planter myself, and I have every possible sympathy with the tea-planters of Ceylon, but I am sure that they themselves would be the very first to admit, if it were put to them, that now that Great Britain has given a substantial preference to Ceylon tea, it would be only fair in return that a substantial preference should be given to Lancashire cotton goods.
In Africa, I understand that the question is extremely complicated, as about 1885, when there was a general scramble for land in Africa, various treaties and arrangements with other foreign countries were made, and these were reviewed again in 1919. Under these arrangements a great part of Africa was to be an ever-open door, and no preference was to be given in a great part of that continent to British cotton goods. There are, however, one or two colonies in Africa which, I believe, leave an opportunity for negotiation, and I hope that the Secretary of State for the Colonies will not forget them when the opportunity offers itself. Of course, the principal reason for the decline in the export of cotton piece goods is Japanese competition. The Japanese, our erstwhile pupils, who used to come over to our technical schools, universities and mills in Lancashire, have now built up a wonderful organisation for themselves, perhaps by means of subsidies, but principally by the depreciation of the Japanese yen. Only a year or two ago, when I was in India, for 100 rupees we used to get 133 Japanese yen. To-day I think that the rate of exchange is 82 yen for 100 rupees. It is that sort of competition that we are up against in Lancashire.
After the Crown Colonies, of course, we have to consider the question of India. I am the last person to wish to upset the Convention which was agreed upon in 1921. I have always been a supporter of further self-government for India. Indeed, I think that if the Government had acted more quickly upon
the lines of the Simon Commission Report, we might have had a very much better feeling in India to-day than there is. It is this delay that has encouraged opposition in political opinion. We have, however, to respect this Convention, by which India now has her own Tariff Board and the right has been acknowledged by three or four successive Governments to impose tariffs not only as revenue tariffs but also for the protection of her own industries.
We all know the strength of these conventions; only the other day we said that it was quite right and proper to be able to put five fielders on the leg side for a slow bowler, but that one was not allowed to put on more than two when he is a fast bowler. It is this sort of cricket that we want to play with India: we want fair play for India and fair play for Lancashire also. At the present moment the tariffs in India are 50 per cent, against Japanese goods, and 25 per cent, against goods from this country. I suggest that it is the depreciation of the Japanese yen, and not British competition which Indian mills fear at the present moment. It is Japanese competition. When we look at the figures of the difference in the imports of Japanese cotton goods into India and those of Lancashire cotton goods, we find that Japanese cotton goods have increased in the course of some 15 years by more than 100 times, whereas the import of Lancashire cotton goods has decreased. Another reason why I consider that 25 per cent, is too high is that I see from the papers that five new cotton mills are to be erected in Allahabad. It will do a good turn to our machine-makers in England because I understand that all the engines, machinery, shafting, etc., are to be ordered in this country. But while we are pleased that our machine-makers are getting some extra trade, we have to realise that in the future this modern machinery will be competing with our own. It must also be remembered that it is not every Province in India which either grows cotton or manufactures cotton. For instance, the Province in which I spent 26 years of my life did not grow any cotton and did not manufacture any. We grew only tea. In that connection I could use the same argument
as I used when I spoke about Ceylon. A definite preference has been given to Indian tea, and I hope, in return, that the Tariff Board, and later the Legislative Assembly in India, will see their way to reduce the excessive tariff on Lancashire cotton goods.
I want to see trade increased between the two countries. I want to see this country taking more Indian tea, and more manganese. In the latter connection there is no doubt that under the Ottawa Agreements the iron and steel manufacturers made a very good agreement. I understand that pig iron from India is to be imported into this country, manufactured in the Welsh rolling-mills into corrugated iron and re-exported in that form to India, where it will get a substantial preference. Seeing that the Indian iron and steel masters are now, I understand, members of the British Federation of Ironmasters, I hope that it is not too much to expect that in the future we shall see Indian mills and Lancashire mills in one federation. I do not bring this Motion forward in any spirit of antagonism to India. I want to see better feeling and closer economic co-operation between the countries. The mills in India and in Lancashire are sufficient to supply the whole of our Crown Colonies and our Indian Empire without having to turn to Japan for a yard. There are so many hon. Members behind me who have a very much closer acquaintance with the cotton industry than I have and who are experts on the subject, that I will cut my speech short. I bring forward the Motion, which, I hope, the Government will accept in those terms, hoping for closer economic co-operation between India, our Colonies, and the old country.

10.20 p.m.

Mr. CHORLTON: I beg to second the Motion.
It is disappointing to find the House so empty when a question of such importance to this country is before it. It is to me entirely inexplicable that so much time should be taken in the discussion of something in regard to Carlton House Terrace, which will not put any man into a job, and that the trade in the North of England should be as it is at the present time. It is one of the most disappointing things that I have had to meet since I came to this House. The Lan-
cashire cotton trade is one upon which Lancashire depends, and the population not only in the cotton trade, but associated with it round Manchester is nearly as great as the population around London. That trade, which has grown up in 200 years—it is 200 years since Richard Arkwright came forward with his invention— has enabled the workers in the cotton mills to earn millions of pounds, which have gone into the coffers of this country and helped, perhaps, to build Nash's monument, Carlton House Terrace. That trade is now faced with a prospect which is very serious. Short as is the time at our disposal to-night some of us will be afforded the opportunity of presenting the case of the cotton industry to the House, and asking for sympathy.
May I quote some of the figures which have been used of late in the meetings which have been held in Lancashire, where we have been discussing what should be done. In 1924 the British exports of cotton cloth to India, British Malaya, Ceylon, Kenya and Uganda amounted to 1,428,000,000 yards more than those of Japan, but in 1931 the Japanese cotton goods imported to those same countries were more than the British exports by 123,000,000 yards. It is most appalling to think that this trade, which was the largest export trade of the country, upon which so many workpeople depended, has now fallen from its high estate and we have been beaten by Japan. It may not be as important as Carlton House Terrace, but in the North of England it is causing very great despondency. The exports of cotton goods from Japan into British Malaya in 1932 amounted to over 16,000,000 yards and into European countries 4,000,000 yards. Into Ceylon in 1932, in August, September and October, Japan sent 15,000,000 yards, while Great Britain sent only 6,000,000 yards of cotton goods. Ceylon is a country of which the Mover of the Resolution has spoken and a country to which we have given a tea preference. We can expect in return something which will help the Lancashire trade. It is useless for anything short of a very heavy preference to be given to us if we are going to recover these markets, which have existed in the past. To Kenya and Uganda in 1931 Japan exported 26,900,000 yards, compared with only 5,000,000 yards from this country.
These figures may not be remembered by some people, but they show how serious is the state of affairs. In 1931 Great Britain exported more yards of cotton goods than Japan but in 1932 by the third quarter we were exporting 556,000,000 yards and Japan 603,000,000 yards. That is the time when Japan took the place of this country as the largest exporter of cotton textile goods. Can anyone wonder that the people of Lancashire, seeing these returns and knowing that the future would be worse, searched around for some means of saving themselves? In front of them there is nothing but semi-starvation; and for their children something even worse. We think that the House should take the matter so seriously as to combine in an effort to devise means for overcoming the difficulties of the trade. Japan is the country we have to face, and any measure that can be devised should be brought in. Other countries use dumping. Every time we make a move we are told that a Treaty is in the way, and that we cannot do anything because of it. We in Lancashire say that the Treaty with Japan should be denounced. It is more important to keep our own working people in employment than, to have any concern for a country which is so jealous of its own people. If the Treaty cannot be denounced then let us have an anti-dumping duty. Why should not the depreciation in the Japanese yen be good enough evidence for us to take action? Perhaps the cotton industry is not important; we are a long way from London.
The Indian side of the question has been explored from every point of view and so far feeling has not partaken of anything of a violent nature. It is felt that the Government really have tried hard to do what they can, but it is still thought that they do not realise the seriousness of the state of affairs in Lancashire and that more should be done. There is no desire to do anything which will affect the poor people of India, and the contention put forward for a reduction of the Tariff is based upon the fact that it will benefit Lancashire and also the poorer population of India who will pay less for Lancashire goods. We have also considered the position of the African Colonies, and in regard to the Treaties there it is unfortunate that we could not take action when they were
considered some time ago. Treaties like the Congo-Basin Treaty must be dealt with if we are to get anything like the trade we used to have with Africa. The same thing holds good in regard to Malaya, where there is a Dutch Treaty.
We want to feel that the concern felt by the Government is as great as the position of the industry deserves, and it would be well if they could appoint a special committee of Members from all sides of the House to ensure that the subject shall receive the attention it deserves. In the meetings which have been held in Lancashire, non-party meetings, the one object has been to deal with the fall in the trade and devise means for recovering it, and I hope that hon. Members of the Labour party will do what they can to help us. We are perfectly prepared to accept any proposal which will provide a better way of arriving at some result. I do not want to take up time by going into further details, though there are many other aspects of this important question with which I would like to deal. I am hoping that some of my hon. Friends behind me will deal with all the other matters that should be brought forward in support of this Motion.

10.31 p.m.

Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: I am sure we have great sympathy with this Vote of Censure on the Government, and we shall certainly support it as such, because it brings into the public view that inactivity which has been so characteristic of the National Government ever since it was formed—inactivity, that is to say, in anything that may be helpful, though considerable activity on the other side so far as restriction of trade goes. The Mover of the Motion spoke about the promises that were held out in Lancashire at the General Election, and the urgent question as to the re-employment of those who were unemployed in the cotton industry. I am sure we shall all agree with him that very extravagant promises were made on behalf of the National Government, that if they were returned to power there would be an amelioration of the unemployment in Lancashire. But like most of the other extravagant promises which were made by the National Government that promise has not been fulfilled.
The Seconder of the Motion spoke of the selfishness of Japan in trying to find markets for Japanese goods. I did not quite follow his argument, because I understand that he is anxious to find markets for Lancashire goods. No doubt the same patriotic motive that compels him to try to find markets for Lancashire goods is compelling the Japanese to try to find markets for Japanese goods. The only unfortunate thing is that the Japanese yen has depreciated more than the English pound. Perhaps some Members will remember that about the time of the last General Election a good deal was said about the depreciation of the English pound and the tragic consequences that might follow if we went off gold, and various things of that sort. Now we hear that the tragedy is not that we have gone off gold, but that we have not gone far enough off gold.

Mr. CHORLTON: What it amounts to is that the hon. and learned Gentleman suggests that we should bring down the conditions of labour and living in Lancashire to a level with those in Japan.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I am afraid that the hon. Member does not follow my argument. It is not a question of the standard of living in Lancashire; it is a question of the devaluation of the pound, which does not necessarily have any reaction, so far as the standard of living in Lancashire is concerned. But the effect of the cutting off of the Lancashire market, of course, is one of the inevitable results of trade restrictions all over the world. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Hon. Members behind me think it is not, but both the Mover and the Seconder have been speaking almost entirely of trade restrictions.

Sir JOHN HASLAM: The exports for the last three months of the past year showed an increase, and that was the first increase for years.

Mr. LAWSON: They were less than those in 1931.

Sir S. CRIPPS: Of course that is a perfectly accurate statement, but I rather gathered that the hon. Member's complaint was that the Lancashire cotton industry was being hampered by import duties in other countries. He instanced India, Ceylon and other countries. The difficulties which are now widely—almost
universally—acknowledged, of tariff walls as interferences with international trade are met by the cotton industry, just as by every other industry in the world. If one is going to erect tariff barriers, they must necessarily have their reactions. I am not familiar with the recent figures as regards the Javanese trade which used to be a big trade in cotton with Lancashire and I cannot say how far that trade may be affected in the future by the taxation of Javanese tea but presumably the time will come, if it has not already arrived—

Mr. CHORLTON: The Javanese trade is a Dutch trade.

Sir S. CRIPPS: But a great deal of Lancashire cotton used to go to Java. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It depends on what one means by a "great deal," but there was a very considerable amount. I have not the figures but I have known many instances of Manchester firms who exported under their own marks cotton goods to Java and did a considerable trade. Naturally if one puts restrictions on imports from Java one is apt to find that there is a less easy flow of cotton goods into Java. If hon. Members think that the policy which the Government have so far pursued is likely to lead to an expanding market for cotton goods from Lancashire we think they will be disappointed. We think that the other way of approaching the problem, that is, from the Lancashire end, by trying to bring about a state of affairs under a nationalised cotton board by which production can be organised and put on more competitive lines in relation to foreign manufacturers is the more hopeful way. I am sure that the hon. and gallant Gentleman who is going to answer for the Government will tell us that the right cure is to nationalise this industry and bring it under centralised control, in order to effect those economies which are so essential. If this Vote of Censure leads to a realisation by the Government, tardy though it may be, that the real cure for the troubles which are presented to them and with which they are unable to cope is the cure of Socialism, then some good will have been done by this discussion.

10.39 p.m.

Mr. J. P. MORRIS: I am sure that the House and in particular Members from
Lancashire feel grateful to the hon. and gallant Member for Blackburn (Sir W. Smiles) for bringing before the House the position of the cotton trade in Lancashire. My hon. and learned Friend who has just spoken described the Motion as a Vote of Censure on the Government and welcomed the opportunity of bringing to the public view the inactivity of the Government in regard to the Lancashire cotton trade. May I remind him that the Government have not been inactive so far as the cotton trade is concerned. May I remind him in case it has not been brought to his notice, that the Government concerned themselves very much in the preparation of the case for the cotton trade at Ottawa and that, arising out of the deliberations at Ottawa, the cotton trade has received substantial benefit. May I remind my hon. and learned Friend again that, as a result of the Government's activity, for the first time we have had a recognition by India of Imperial Preference, which was ratified in the Indian Legislative Assembly?
It is not my intention to follow the hon. and learned Gentleman. I wish particularly to deal with what I consider is the main reason for the continued depression in the cotton trade. The Mover and Seconder of the Motion have rightly said that it is due to Japanese competition, and stress was laid on the extensive competition in India of Japanese piece goods. May I ask my hon. and gallant Friend the Minister for the Department of Overseas Trade if he will bear in mind a suggestion which I very humbly make to him I As a means of increasing the export of Lancashire cotton piece goods to India, I recommend His Majesty's Government to take notice of, and if necessary form a Trade Committee to explore, the possibilities of a more extended use of Indian cotton in Lancashire cotton mills. I am certain that if it were possible to give an assurance to India that we were prepared to use more Indian cotton, the Indian cotton industry in turn would give us a guarantee to take more of our cotton piece goods in preference to those from Japan. Japan in 1931 bought 21,000,000 crores of rupees worth of Indian cotton, find India in turn took only 8,000,000 crores of Japanese cotton piece goods. Therefore, India had a favourable trade balance, so far as the
cotton trade was concerned, of 13,000,000 crores of rupees.
I would like to make a slight reference to the Cotton Trade League, which has been formed in Lancashire and to which reference has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for the Platting Division (Mr. Chorlton). With the object of that League I fully sympathise, but I would ask the Government not to take too seriously the suggestion brought up by that body to attempt to dictate to India any interference in the fiscal freedom granted to that country. My hon. Friend the Member for Platting admitted that such a state of affairs existed, and I would suggest to the Government that the opinion expressed at those meetings on that point is not the whole opinion of the people interested in the cotton trade of Lancashire. It is highly desirable that, at a time when we are about to set up a new constitution for India, and when the report of the Indian Tariff Commission is now due, instead of creating a spirit of hostility in India, at any rate in Lancashire we should do nothing that might upset what we all hope will be a happy solution of the great question of the future Government of India.
The position in the Crown Colonies is very different, and I would like the Government to make a declaration as to whether or not, as a result of the commercial treaties that we have signed with various countries which give the most favoured nation treatment to Japan in our Crown Colonies, the advantages that we get in return outweigh the disadvantages which the cotton trade of Lancashire suffers by Japanese competition in those parts. I am certain that if the Government could inform the people of Lancashire that it would be disadvantageous to terminate those treaties, then the voice of Lancashire in that respect would be quiet, but if it were found that the disadvantages that the cotton trade of Lancashire suffered from extensive competition from Japan were not offset by the advantage we received from other countries, the voice of Lancashire, which has now begun to be heard, would continue to be heard in a more violent strain. It is a pity that the time is so short for a discussion of such importance and magnitude. I have in mind that my hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Trade
is to reply and I will finish by asking the Government to give earnest consideration to the deplorable condition of the Lancashire cotton trade, and, as far as possible, without cutting across the previous policy of successive Governments since 1919, to do everything in their power to give assistance to this great industry.

10.47 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel J. COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this question. Speaking on behalf of the Government, I have pleasure in accepting the Motion. We do not regard it as a Vote of Censure for a reason I shall be pleased to make plain. We take the reference in the Motion to the decline in exports of cotton piece goods to relate to a fairly wide period. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) unfortunately had not the facts when he described this as a Vote of Censure on the present Government. In point of fact, the position is that in 1932 the export of cotton piece goods from this country increased from 1,716,000,000 square yards in 1931 to 2,198,000,000 square yards in 1932. In the case of India, the increase was from 390,000,000 square yards in 1931 to 599,000,000 square yards in 1932. I think that to dispose of my hon. and learned Friend's further suggestion, I have only to say that during the term of the Government of which he was a Member, the fall of exports to India were on an unprecedented scale.
From the hon. and learned Gentleman's observations, I will turn to more serious observations that have been made on this question. His Majesty's Government regard the Lancashire cotton trade as of the greatest national importance, not only on account of its employment value, but also because of the balance of trade on account of its great exporting activity. The Government are not content merely to assert this, but are willing to show that active efforts are being made to help this great industry in many fields and will continue to do it. Let me outline some points in relation to the industry and some advantages that have been secured.
First of all, let me make reference to the Dominion and other markets. In relation to the Ottawa Agreements, let me take one or two countries in order. In
Canada, as hon. Members know, apart from mercerised yarns and yarns for mercerising, on which the continuance of free entry with increased preference has been secured, the changes in Canada are small. We have, however, secured a new agreement and an undertaking by the Canadian Government to set up a tariff board to review any duties specified by the United Kingdom Government for the purpose of recommending the changes which may be necessary in order to bring the duties into accord with the principle that they shall not exceed such a level as will give the United Kingdom producer full opportunity of reasonable competition on the basis of relative cost of economical and efficient production. United Kingdom producers will be entitled to the right of audience before the board.
As regards Australia, the application of the preference formula laid down in the trade agreement concluded at Ottawa resulted in a new preference of 10 per cent, ad valorem for sewing thread and increases in the margins of preference on other yarns and piece goods. The increase in the margin was generally 5 per cent, ad valorem in the case of piece goods, and from 7½ to 10 per cent, ad valorem in the case of yarns and threads. A few of the reductions in duty introduced since the Ottawa Conference apply to cotton goods. The Commonwealth Government also undertook that the existing duties should be reviewed by a tariff board to bring them into line with the principle which I have enunciated.
In regard to the Union of South Africa, prior to the Ottawa Conference the duties on cotton piece goods of a value of less than 1s. 3d. a yard f.o.b. were 5 per cent, ad valorem on United Kingdom goods and 10 per cent, ad valorem on foreign goods. Under the recent trade agreement the Union Government undertook to impose a minimum specific duty of l½d. per yard on these goods when imported from sources other than the United Kingdom. Southern Rhodesia imposed a similar specific duty. That is of distinct advantage to United Kingdom trade. As regards Newfoundland, the agreement is conditional on certain other points. If that agreement goes through cotton manufactures generally, including piece goods, will get a new preference of 10 per cent, ad valorem.
Then, as regards the Colonies, among those which have recently granted new Custom tariff preferences to United Kingdom cotton goods are Mauritius, Gambia and Sierra-Leone—before Ottawa —and the Federated and Non-Federated Malay States since Ottawa. The position in regard to the Colonies is that in almost all of them, except Ceylon, a preference in already accorded to British cotton goods. Reference has been made to the position of Ceylon. While this matter is under consideration I do not want to say anything in addition to what has already been said, beyond emphasising that the terms of a telegram which has been sent are quite clear and specific, and my hon. Friends are aware of the attitude of the Government in this regard.

Mr. CHORLTON: The great difficulty is that the preferences are so small from the Colonies.

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: My hon. Friend would like a larger range of preferences. That is perfectly true, and we must work within what limits we can. The Government are fully aware that an improvement in the preference margin will naturally help British trade. Then reference has been made to the West African and East African territories. I cannot discuss the whole question within the time at my disposal, but hon. Members will be aware that owing to certain treaties it is not possible to secure preferential margins in those districts at the present time. The question is complicated by certain important conditions which are now being examined closely. The Government are anxious to take the views of those trading interests which trade in these territories and intend to bring them into full consultation on the matter as soon as the legal question can be made clear. His Majesty's Government are aware of the difficult questions arising there, and also of the feelings aroused. I would add that the trading interests have not up to now been quite unanimous in their desires in this regard, and it is important that His Majesty's Government should take them with them in proposals concerning East and West Africa.
I would turn now to what is, perhaps, the most important point raised by my hon. Friend, Japanese competition. Its extent is fully recognised. These figures
will show how important is the question. The total exports of cotton goods from Japan in the first eleven months of 1931 amounted to 1,317,000,000 square yards, and rose in 1932 to 1,821,000,000 —a very big rise in a difficult year. Here are the figures in the case of India. For those 11 months in 1931 the exports from Japan amounted to 360,000,000 square yards, and rose in 1932 to 592,000,000. There was a similar rise in United Kingdom exports to India, though it was not quite so great. For 11 months in 1931 our exports to India amounted to 363,000,000 square yards, and rose to 544,000,000 square yards in 11 months in 1932. India herself has recognised this intensified competition from Japan. In August last the Indian Government increased the duty on foreign cotton piece goods from 31¼ per cent, to 50 per cent., leaving the duty on United Kingdom imports at 25 per cent., thereby increasing a preference of 6¼ per cent, to 25 per cent.
What of the future? Hon. Members have said that they have apprehensions with regard to the future. At this late hour I have only time to say that the President of the Board of Trade received a very important and influential deputation a few days ago, and I was with him at the time. The position was very fully and clearly outlined, and the Government are fully aware of the facts of the case, and will give it every consideration. In the terms of the Motion the Government will do all that is possible to safeguard the interests of this important trade. More than that I cannot say at this stage. There is one word more I have to say. There are negotiations at the present time with a number of countries. My hon. Friend mentioned one country, but in point of fact 19 countries have asked us for tariff negotiations, and I can say that in all cases where there is a market or a potential market for cotton goods this most important industry will be kept in the forefront of our minds. We have much pleasure in accepting the Motion. We do not regard it as a Vote of Censure, but as an earnest attempt on the part of this House to help an industry which plays an important part in our national welfare.

Resolved,
That this House views with grave concern the decline in the export of cotton piece goods from Lancashire and urges the Government to take all possible steps to assist this great industry.

Orders of the Day — HOUSING (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) [MONEY].

Resolution reported,
That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to bring to an end the power of the Minister of Health to grant subsidies under Sections one and three of the Housing, Etc., Act, 1923, and the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1924, and to enable him to undertake to make contributions in certain cases towards losses sustained by authorities under guarantees given by them for facilitating the provision of houses to be Jet to the working classes, it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of such sums as may become payable in pursuance of undertakings given by the Minister of Health, with the consent of the Treasury, under the paid Act to reimburse local authorities and county councils not more than one-half of any losses sustained by them under the terms of guarantees given to societies under paragraph (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section ninety-two of the Housing Act, 1925, where the advances whereof the repayment is guaranteed are made by the society for the purpose of enabling any of its members to build or acquire houses intended to be let to persons of the working classes and the Minister is satisfied—

(a) that the guarantee extends only to the principal of, and interest on, the amount by which the sum to by advanced by the society exceeds the sum which would normally be advanced by them without any such guarantee; and
(b) that the liability of the local authority or county council under the guarantee cannot be greater than two-thirds of that principal and interest."

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved,
That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]

Adjourned accordingly at Two Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.